A Jaded Bard

Serial Killer versus Murderer: Is there a difference?

2011-12-04T11:24:00.001-08:00

The names will almost always evoke a sense of dread or involuntary feeling of coldness when they are uttered; even those who aren't aware of the crimes behind the names will often take notice...

John Wayne Gacy, David Berkowitz, Jeffrey Dahmer, Gary Ridgway, Dennis Rader.....

For those who might not pay that much attention to events, the above list is of some of the most prolific and persistent serial killers that human society has ever known at least in modern times. Their reigns or terror spanned years or even decades, but while these people were free, the above people killed repeatedly.

Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold, Ted Bundy, George Hennard, Seung-Hui Cho....

The above is a partial list of murderers of note who managed to make the media grade due to either the savagery of their acts or the celebrity status of their victims. It is only too easy to lump one group in with the other without any sort of delimiter, but is there a difference between the two groups of people listed here past the sole intersection of their acts at the point of murder?

Disavowed Situations

For the purposes of this post, the following individuals/situations will have to be excluded:

- The soldier in a combat role.

- Law Enforcement personnel under fire

- World Leaders in a leadership role

- Any other equivalent situation which would create an artificial placement on a soon to be introduced scale

The above situations would allow an artificially created extraneous stimulus to affect an individual's actual and true placement on a scale. Without the role as a leader/dictator/despot or a situation of combat, in many cases the individual would behave in a different fashion. (Were it not for a set of unfortunate circumstances, Adolf Hitler might have had a career as an artist.) The purpose here is to compare people under normal circumstances with as few artificial stimuli as possible.

A Reference Chart

The white papers concerning studies of the human condition would probably fill up several warehouses (or a large Digital Storage Array), so the following chart is being used for drastic simplification purposes though it serves to properly illustrate my statement that a serial killer and a murderer are two different sorts of people.

The concept of Zones

I am sure that some who have read at least this far might be laughing, but by the time this paragraph is concluded, they may be persuaded to read further. The concept of a human bneing actually being pacifistic in nature might be laugahble to some, but there have been and there currently are people that exist in that zone. Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa and many of the martyrs in the days before Christianity was accepted come to mind. There also are people that constantly exist in the red zone but more on that later. The vast majority of human beings would fall into some location of the gray area of the chart but static placement on the above contravenes the dynamic nature of a human being. Even if that is taken into account, your average human will still stay within the gray area.

The red zone is what is of most concern here. Somone existing in that zone even for a short moment in time is capable of killing another human being. I say capable because that might not always be the end result, but the capacity to do so. (The base level concept is called correlation/causation; for example, if you smoke cigarettes, you will not always get cancer, but there is a correlative/causative effect in play regarding the habit. The same sort of mindset applies here. You don't necessarily have to kill while in this zone but there is more of a chance that you will do so.) Given the right set of circumstances and stimuli, most anyone can be forced into the red zone but further delimiters of a societal nature come into play.

Sociopathy: The sole cause or only a single factor?

As we grow up in our respective societies, we are taught a base concept of morality by not only those older than us but also by our peers. Violation of thse restraints can result in being cast out or shunned. In olden times, ostracization or public humiliation was often enough to keep errant individuals in line but since that time, society has become much more complicated. Though it is an unspoken prerogative that the older and wiser will inculcate the young with the proper social tools to interact, they are not always successful. It is these inculcated constraints that serve to limit bad behavior and when they can be circumvented or ignored, bad things can happen. Whether this capacity is ensconced within an individual or learned is a hotly contested debate, but if the dissociative capacity of ignoring inculcated restraints exists, a human is capable of doing anything. The definition of a sociopath covers a broad range of conditions, but it most often is tied to the act of murder. Someone who can kill without suffering the delimiting feelings of guilt or remorse is considered a sociopath but while a murderer may commit that act in a specific situation, the same thing doesn't apply to a serial killer.

A Murderer: A Spike into the Red Zone

When a murderer commits their heinous act, they essentially are spiking into the Red Zone of the depicted chart but once they have committed the act, they more than likely will fall out of that area back into the gray. (Even if multiple people are killed at the same time (a mass murderer), the act still comprises a single murderous instance.) Until the proper set of circumstances once more present themselves, the murderer will stay in the gray zone during the interim.

A Serial Killer: Living in the Red Zone

A serial killer on the other hand never leaves the Red Zone. Their proclivity for murder after murder all but guarantees that they will always exist in that zone, needing very little if any provocation to commit yet another act of homicide. Whereas a murderer might actually possess some traits of actual normalcy, a serial killer only adopts such mannerisms as a facade to mask what they truly are feeling. There were other sorts of individuals in the past who could well have lived in that zone. A 'cold blooded killer' or a 'killer of men' would have been two descriptors to describe a person of that sort. The bounty hunters of yore and the fictional character Jonah Hex come to mind. Such individuals fail to connect the act of killing or murder to remorse or shame.

Do Socio-Economic factors have any bearing?

Though many would like to think so, there are no valid causative/correlative factors that connect lack of wealth to the proclivity to kill though a lower economic status increases the potential for criminal acts. (Many murderers and serial killers suffered little or no privation during their formative years)

Is it possible that a serial killer and a murderer might have more in common besides their act or acts of violence?

That is also very possible, but even if that can be found to be the case, it is relatively easy to separate the murderers from the serial killers by examining their criminal acts, the time frame of occurrence and any repetition of their acts of violence. A murderer may strike only once while a serial killer will strike again and again but both pose a threat to a civilized society. Laws and courts and arbitration and even the United Nations came to be to reduce both the potential and the number of violent acts that are executed.

Does this mean that one type of mindset is more dangerous than the other?

While many high profile murderous rampages make headlines because of their exceptional circumstance or body count, a murderer more or less lacks persistence; they are like a shooting star as they have their brief moment in the media. A serial killer's acts may not be as initially heinous taken one at a time, but when they wind up killing large numbers of people over a long period of time their acts ultimately become more heinous once in the public eye. This comprises something I call persistence which makes the serial killer far more potentially dangerous than a murderer. If they have anything else in common besides their murderous acts, it is that both sorts need to be caught and either jalied or executed.

A Jaded Bard

9/11/2001 on 9/11/2011 - Has anything really changed?

2011-09-11T15:01:00.000-07:00

Ten years ago today, an event happened in the USA that many said was the official beginning of a new age: The Age of Terrorism. As far as what happened on 9/11, history is pretty clear on that fact. On the morning of 9/11/2001, four US jetliners were forcibly commandeered and used as large missiles against the WTC and the Pentagon. A fourth plane possibly destined for either the US Capitol or The White House never made it to its target thanks in part to the passengers on the flight battling the hijackers.

The death toll from the attacks was 2,996 people, supplanting Pearl Harbor (ca. 2,350) as the most US citizens killed in a single attack on US soil. Needless to say, the repercussions from the attack were far reaching, from the passage of the Patriot Act (A piece of very bad and unneeded legislation) to two foreign interdictions (Afghanistan as a direct consequence and Iraq as an indirect one). The foe was called Al-Qaeda and their goals were made plainly evident. There were other attacks against the USA before 9/11, but the USA was on guard against only rational means of doing so; using jetliners as kamikaze missiles was in no way rational. Before 9/11, there was the attack on the WTC in 1993 (which many think was a sort of advance scouting mission) and the attack on the USS Cole while refueling in Yemen. An individual by the name of Usama Bin Laden was eventually blamed for orchestrating the attacks and though it took some time (nearly 10 years), UBL was found and killed in May of 2011. It has now been ten years since the events of 9/11, but what has changed and what hasn't?

The Illiterate Ideal or a Penultimate Danger?

The purpose of an Illuminated Bible was so that the illiterate could understand what the bible said, but their inability to read the words for themselves made them dependent on those who were literate. Thus, this gave those who were literate a lot of power under certain circumstances. Regarding at least the western world, literacy rates these days are 95%+

This is far from the case in other parts of the world. The literacy rates in the Muslim dominated countries in and around the ME region are largely appalling:

Afghanistan - 29, 835, 392 Literacy: 71.9%

Algeria - 34,994,937 Literacy: 69.9%

Bahrain - 1,214,705 Literacy: 86.5%

Egypt - 82,079,636 Literacy: 71.4%

Iran - 77,891,220 Literacy: 77%

Iraq - 30,399,572 Literacy: 74.1%

Jordan - 6,508,271 Literacy: 89.9%

Kuwait - 2,595,628 Literacy: 93.3%

Libya - 6,597,960 Literacy: 82.6%

Mali - 14,159,904 Literacy: 46.4%

Morocco - 31,968,361 Literacy: 52.3%

Oman - 3,027,959 Literacy: 81.4%

Pakistan - 187,342,721 Literacy: 49.9%

Qatar - 848,016 Literacy: 89%

Saudi Arabia - 26,131,703 Literacy: 78.8%

Sudan - 36,817,000 Literacy: 61.1% (approx.)

Somalia - 9,925,640 Literacy: 37.8%

Syria - 22,517,750 Literacy: 79.6%

Tunisia - 10,629,186 Literacy: 74.3%

UAE - 5,148,664 Literacy: 79.9%

Yemen - 24,133,492 Literacy: 50.2%

(Source: CIA factbook)

While some of the rates are not that bad (Libya, Qatar, Oman), others in this category should almost be considered criminal (Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Somalia) Saudi Arabia has little excuse for their literacy rate due in part to their massive oil revenues (300+ Billion a year). The point to the aforementioned list is the same regarding the Illuminated Bible. Those in the above list who are illiterate will be dependent upon an Imam or a Cleric to interpret the Qur'an for them...and if the scholar is of an Anti-American leaning, he will will have plenty of people to listen to his clarion call for violence in the name of Allah. If the literacy rates in many of the above listed countries do not improve, there is the potential of even more danger in the future from the numbers of the illiterate. Places like Pakistan and Yemen and Egypt are considered potential flashpoint countries due in part to the low literacy rates they possess. In ten years, this trend has not only not improved, it is accelerating in some regions.

The Arab Spring - ...not quite...

While both Libya and Egypt ejected their cold war relic leaders, things didn't change in many other parts of the Arab world. The sheikhs in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE weren't affected by the waves of revolt past making a (very) few hollow promises. What is the major reason why this has occured? It has to do with oil production. Though Libya and Egypt produce oil and natural gas, their production is nothing compared to Kuwait, the UAE or Saudi Arabia, thus regime change in those countries could be accomplished with minimal effect. Because the world still depends upon oil and oil products to run their economies, any disruption regarding a major oil producing country would be regarded as counterproductive to the world economy as a whole. Until oil is supplanted by a different means of powering the world economies, the Arab Spring will not fully flower.

The Current Position of the USA

The USA is in a state of fiscal crisis due to a number of factors, but much of what the USA has suffered has been brought upon itself due to its greed and a tendency to live beyond its means. The police actions in Afghanistan and Iraq haven't helped either. Since the time of 9/11, we have made a large effort to balance protection of our citizens against the concepts of freedom (it could be said that it was the latter that allowed 9/11 to occur, but freedom has always been a double edged sword; unless everyone has freedom, no one has freedom.) The economic malaise in the USA is also occurring in Europe and a few well planned attacks could drastically worsen that situation. The USA has ignored its fiscal house of cards for too long; it is time to get it into order before another potential strike paralyzes our capacity to act. The article in Time regarding the Decline and Fall of Europe is an eye opener ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2088040,00.html ; subscription is required), but it remains to be seen if anything is done to address the problem.

What can be done to prevent another 9/11?

The answers to the above question are myriad, from the ineffectual and a threat to our freedom (The Patriot Act wa bad legislation), to the draconian and counterproductive, but there are steps that we can take to lessen the reoccurrence of a massive loss of life and wholescale destruction.

- Open/Controlled immigration without quotas will allow us to know who is in this country and where. http://thejadedbard.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

- A consumption tax in place of our current tax code would go a long way towards solving our fiscal dilemma, but such a tax system is Congresses worst nightmare because it would make the money trail more transparent and possibly lead to other needed reforms as an implication of the aforementioned. Cleaning up our monetary mess would give us more time to address the elements of Radical Islam who desire nothing less than our destruction.

- One of the founding principles upon which the USA was built is the concept of tolerance, especially religious tolerance. There is also a flip side to that also contained in the First Amendment. It concerns the right of the people to peacefully redress their grievances and it follows that any means other than peaceful is a violation of the law. Violent agitation in the name of any religion isn't tolerated as a matter of Constitutional Law. The concept of Political Correctness has played a large part in dulling and nullifying this aspect of things and it is in need of being rescued.

Can Shari'a coexist with a Free Republic?

There are a few misconceptions that need to be cleared up first. The USA is NOT a Democracy; we are a Republic that descends from Democratic principles. We are a superset that embraces many demicratic ideals, but our basic governance is based on the concept of a Republic. An 'Islamic Republic' on the other hand is misleading because such a Republic is often times based on Shari'a Law and since such law descends from the Qur'an, an Islamic Republic is essentially a Theocracy. Theocracies are an essentially unworkable form of governance because it readily denies freedom to those not of the sanctioned religion (Islam) amongst other things. In recent years, the USA has attempted to take steps towards compromise such as extending an invitation to those of Islam to participate in space exploration and other such projects, but will those of Islam accept? When UBL was killed, a personage by the name of Ayman al-Zawahiri took control of Al-Qaeda. The following are some of his more pointed aphorisms:

“There is no reform except through jihad, ... We have to realize the nature of this conflict: our enemies do not agree with or approve of our rights.”

As long as you use peacful means to address your grievances, you have the same rights as anyone else, but if you use violence, you are in violation of our secular laws and violating our rights.

“People of the crusader alliance behold the disasters that the policies of Bush and Blair will bring upon you and, God willing, on all of those who march behind them"

The Crusaders disappeared shortly after 1193 A.D. Is this honest ignorance or it this quote aimed at those too illiterate to understand the Qur'an?

“It is imperative that, in addition to force, there be an appeasement of Muslims and a sharing with them in governance.”

In other words, not only must we tolerate their violent nature, we have to placate them and allow them to share in governance? This essentially would reward them for committing omnicide; let's hope that we never hit that low key.

On the other hand there are people like Hassen Chalghoumi who must live his life in fear because he has condemed the Holocaust and supported a ban on the burqa in France. Ayman al-Zawahari lives his life fearlessly as he seeks to rouse the fury of the illiterate and uneducated though his rhetoric. How is it possible to reach out to people who are only too ready to incite anger and violence if they feel they can achieve their goals by that means? It follows that detente is a welcome action, but a line has to be drawn in the sand as to what will be tolerated.

Shari'a law is flawed in its restriction of freedom for those not of the faith it represents. It has no real relevance in relation to the Secular Law of a Republic that guarantees the same rights to all regardless of faith.

Conclusion

In the ten years since 9/11, things haven't changed that much overall. While Iraq, Libya and Egypt have new rulership, the potential number of fervent (those devoted to their faith in often times a violent way) will rise unless the literacy levels are increased. Large numbers of the illiterate are fertile ground for people like Ayman al-Zawahari and since it is highly unlikely he will be silenced by any lawful means, reducing the numbers of the illiterate will rob him of a captive audience.

The USA needs to finish its business in Iraq and Afghanistan and then leave the ME area in its entirety. Without US troops on the ground, the radical Islamic sects will not have an external target to use for the purposes of obfuscation. The US should station an AC Fleet in the Indian Ocean with a Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) ready to roll if needed. In exchange for this, advise the ME that if there is any more trouble in that region, no half measures will be used if we are forced to act.

There is no harm in attempting to reach out to the Muslim community, but they need to understand the concepts of secular law first.

A Jaded Bard

2011-07-08T01:50:00.000-07:00

On Vampires and the Next Trend to be beaten to Death

The metamorphosis of the vampire concept has come a long way since Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’ was first published in 1897. Though many cultures have their own versions of such creatures, there is valid conjecture that the concept of a ‘vampire’ was in large part based on the life of Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia who was also known as Vlad the Impaler and yes, Dracula. His father was a member of an order called ‘Societas Draconistrarum’ or The Order of the Dragon. With membership, the member earned the right to the name Dracul, a noun of the Latin word Draco, or dragon. A son of such a personage would then be referred to as Dracula, a son of Dracul.

For decades after Stoker’s novel, the concept of a vampire was largely unchanged from his baseline. The following is some of the established canon regarding such creatures:

- The vampire survives by drinking blood of his or her victims. The blood of the living allows the vampire to live far longer than a mortal human along with a robust state of being (provided they get enough blood).

- The concept of the sanctity of life is heavily entwined with the Christian religions, so a vampire would be considered ‘unlife’ (the undead) and as such is a profanity in the eyes of God. They can’t tread on holy ground nor can they tolerate the sight of a crucifix and Holy Water will injure them. Most anything of religious significance is the bane of the vampire.

- This is not to say that a vampire is powerless; that is far from the truth. Unlike most of the undead, vampires have full control of their mental faculties and are physically and intellectually superior to mortal kind. They are immune or highly resistant to injury that would prove fatal to a mortal and are capable of changing into animal form (a bat is what is usually implied, but there has also been mention of rats and other such creatures that prefer the dark.)

- The light of day is another weakness of a vampire (perhaps an extrapolation of religious dogma); the light will burn a vampire and can kill them if exposure is prolonged. Other things that vampires fear are garlic, salt, silver to an extent (silver is considered an element of purity, but it is deadlier to such things as werewolves and ghosts), a stake through the heart (a classic means of disposing of them. Vampires must hide during the day, so finding them in such repose makes them vulnerable.), and fire. (Fire is also considered a purifying element and as such would be the bane of any sort of undead life.)

At what point do stories of such creatures cease to be the subject of occasional entertainment and become beaten to death? Chances are, it started when the concept of a Vampire was reimagined (There is no harm in doing so because that is the ‘creative’ part of writing) The first ‘Blade‘ movie was released in 1998. In the movie, the majority of the vampires are such because of a virus. Because of this fact, they are immune to religious means of destruction (like holy water and crucifixes), but garlic causes them to go into anaphylactic shock. They are also vulnerable to daylight ( if they did manage to do so, what SPF of sunscreen do they use?) The movie spawned two sequels, but whether or not Blade IV: The IRS is released may have to wait until Wesley Snipes is once more a free man. The turning point was when the novel Twilight by Stephenie Meyer was released. (I actually tried reading one of the novels, but it definitely is young adult fiction and I am no longer a young adult demographically speaking. Judging by their sales volume, I suppose that they appeal to a lot of people, but it is doubtful many are in the (fast approaching) middle aged male category. I saw the movies at some point as well and thankfully, RedBox makes renting movies financially painless. I vaguely remember some female running around in hipsters while hairless buff boys were mostly running around shirtless and there were some large wolves…yeah, my attention can still wander unless there is something of consequence to see. The spoof of the Twilight films, Vampires Suck, was more to my liking. (Team Jason! Team Edward!)).

Based on the success of the novels, the television and movie people jumped on board followed by the literary houses. Suddenly, vampires were the new craze whether it was Blade: The Series or The Gates. I was in a bookstore recently and there were nine or ten mass market paperbacks consisting of some series of books about…you guessed it…Vampyrs. The last word of that sentence isn’t a typo; it’s the name of the vampire variant that is in the books. A quick perusal showed me that once more it was aimed at the older teen/young adult market; in other words, not I. Of course, I ought to mention True Blood with its southern fried vampires (I can see a whole new meaning to the term ‘redneck’) While the vampires of that show share some of the vampire weaknesses and strengths, they are not bothered by crucifixes (amusing), they can be held in place using silver chains (That makes no sense at all.) and werewolves are subservient to them (That is even more inane than the silver chains binding them.) It is apparent that the beating to death of the vampire genre isn’t finished yet, though; Justin Cronin’s ‘The Passage’ may be the next adapted vampire themed series, but the ‘jumps; as they are called are pure mutagenic (a deadly side effect of an age extending substance) and the novel was actually decent. (Hint: If you want a series that appeals to young readers and old, think Harry Potter.) What will be the next theme to be beaten into a pulp? I think I see a disturbing trend. First, there was ‘Battle of Los Angeles’ courtesy of the SyFy Channel along with Battle: Los Angeles and now there is ‘Falling Skies’ (An interesting concept, but as with too much of the fare these days, way too Politically Correct and some weak plot holes filled up with aliens and not much else.) Only time will tell if alien invasions become the next trend to be put through the grist mill, but if that happens, a film adaptation of Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle’s ‘Footfall’ could be interesting….

Timothy Linnomme

2011-06-12T12:26:00.000-07:00

Islam: The Other Side

It isn't often that I peruse 'pass it along' email, but this one is not only exceptional, I deem it worthy of a blog post (though I won't be forwarding it.). My thanks to the person or people who originally collected this information. (The content has been annotated with additional information.)

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult; it came to be as a military conquest. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works:(percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States ). At this point, the concept of Al-Taqiyyah (dissimilation) comes into play. Any person or organization who attempts to call those of Islam to task for any aspect of the above named situation are attacked in various ways through media channels and referred to as 'intolerant'. It is also at about this time where various Clerics of Islam will refer to their religion as one of peace.:

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is to convert the world and to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s (supposed) to be peace because everybody is a Muslim: we know however that this isnt true at all...

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Even after Dar-es-Salaam is attained, the violence doesn't stop; once the enemy without has been suborned, it is the enemy within that comes under assault. Sectarian warfare replaces externally focused rage until another external target can be found. Once that is the case, the above process once again repeats itself. It falls to all of those who cherish their freedom to be as vigilant regarding threats to their freedom as much as supporting the concept of freedom for others because those of Islam are coming to a neighborhood near you...keep thinking they are not going to harm you and they will 'accept' you as you are, but those who are not for Islam are against it...

Old Chinese proverb: "Unless you change direction, you're apt to end up where you're headed.'"

A Jaded Bard

2011-02-03T10:15:00.000-08:00

Egypt 101: A Primer (and more)

The latest news to confront the masses is in essence an open revolt against the despot who has run Egypt with an iron hand for nearly thirty years. (Mohammed) Hosni Mubarak came to power in 1981 following the death of Anwar Sadat. Needless to say, though to some he represents a stabilizing influence in the world's largest Arab country, there are some facts that can't be ignored. Most notably:

- Hosni Mubarak is a Cold War Relic
- He has ruled Egypt with an iron fist since being 'elected' (This term is used loosely.)
- The latest 'voting results' are rife with fraud.
- When even the military won't toe the line, it is obviously Mr. Mubarak doesn't rule by the will of the people.

This is all well and good, but what exactly is Egypt these days? Egypt is a stark (and dangerous) mix of a small minority of haves and a large majority of have nots. The best way to describle the current economic mix in Egypt is by stating the following: 10-20-70. In other words:

About 10% of the people there live high on the hog and have a well-off lifestyle

About 20% of the people have a decent lifestyle ( Mostly merchants and such)

The remaining 70% consider a full belly and a roof over their head a luxury, let alone anything else.

While the top ten percent enjoy all of the perks that come with their wealth, the wealth has to come from someplace. Even though the official Egypt unemployment rate is about 9.4%, unofficially it could be as high as 30%, and a very large portion of the employed are younger with college degrees. If you are born into the elite, you are guaranteed not only work, but education as well, but if you are born poor, you will remain so for your life. Any economist can tell you that a situation like this will never hold.

Egypt has a long history behind it, from the Empire days to its (relatively) modern era, but most of that history (surprise!) has been under the bootheel of one ruler or another. What is most surprising is that a successful uprising hasn't happened before, but now it is here for better and (possibly) worse.

The Players

(Muhammed) Hosni Mubarak

This embattled Cold War Relic needs to go. Any support for him in any way whatsoever will weaken not only those who support him, but potential relations with a future Egypt as well. He has not only stomped on any political representation (other than his own), he has done the same to other various elements in Egypt as well, such as...

The Muslim Brotherhood

Why is this outlawed organization being listed in second place? Because they hold a lot more power than anyone can imagine. The have been banned as the MB since the 1950's for their attempts on the life of Gamel Abdel Nasser, but they still exist and they are still present albeit under a variety of 'independent' parties. The Muslim Brotherhood has officially endorsed the current uprising, but the biggest question is how their (considerable) power base will translate into politics. Though the MB has shown that they can function under a political framework, their creed can't be taken lightly at all in this day and age:

“Allah is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

No matter how the Al-Taqiyyah spin doctors wish to ameliorate the above, that credo is NOT peaceful in its utterance at all. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in 1928 as an initial anti-colonialist faction with official (and unofficial) chapters in numerous (mostly Muslim) countries. An appropriate analogy is thus:

"When an invading General was apprised of the danger and violence of a country wracked by poverty, he was asked how he would proceed. "I will not make war upon them; I will feed the hungry who will then make war for me."

The MB has helped and supported the poor in Egypt for a long time even while it suffered under the bootheels of whoever was in charge of the country. They don't even really have to grab power if a vacuum forms; all they need to be is unbanned. Once that is done, they can then use the electorate base they have succored to halp them gain power.

Pro-Democracy Forces

Despite many people thinking that such could potentially gain power in post-Mubarak Egypt, history tends not to agree with that assertion. Not only are the contingents fractionated, they lack a central figure to focus their aims. Though some perceive Mohammed El Baradei as such a figure, there would be many who say he is too closely allied to the west in mindset.

Mubarak's Cronies

If you are going to have a revolution against a ruling party or regime, it is always best to clean house; if you don't the dirt that remains can arise to create something even worse than was before. ( Russia anyone?) If the revolution in Egypt is to be successful, the elite will need to be watched closely to prevent any attempts at oligarchy.

Other Groups

Past the ones mentioned, there really are no other groups of consequence in Egypt. While the poor will march for whoever feeds them, non Muslim minorities in Egypt face a potentially dangerous time. Coptic Christians represent about 10% of Egypt's population, but their relations with at least Catholics and especially Muslims have never been warm and friendly. Though they have done their best to stay below the radar, more presecutions could result if the wrong sort of government gains power in Egypt.

Cairo Facts

Though Cairo proper has only 7 million or so people, the area they occupy is only 175 square miles (NYC in comparison has roughly 8 million people on 305 square miles) If you add the surrounding areas of Cairo to that total, the city population is more than many US States. The crowding has led to violence in many more ways than one, but it has also fueled the protests that show no sign of winding down. Despite the attempts of Egypt to diversify its economy, the grinding poverty, illiteracy (30%), and the stark inequality will have to be addressed before the country can move forward.

Conclusion

Though the optimist in me would like to believe in a positive outcome in Egypt, the realist in me can't do so. As much as I would like to see a democracy oriented government, the truth is that the Muslim Brotherhood is better organized and more capable of taking over the reins of government. Whether they choose to disavow or modify their credo is another matter entirely.

A Jaded Bard

2011-01-10T23:38:00.000-08:00

Happy New Years...and some thoughts on 2011

Well, the new Congress is in place and there are already signs that the newly elected House members are more interested in the trough full of pap than any sort of real reform. The trumpeting of a bill to repeal ObamaCare makes for a damn good sound bite, but even if it made it to the President, Obama would veto it, and the GOP doesn't have the needed two thirds to override the veto. Is this a ploy to arrive at a lesser soultion like defunding the measure or is it something like 'Okay, we tried to repeal the bill, but we failed...live with it , America!' I am interested in why my readers think about this...

Even at this point, partisan lines are being drawn in the sand as the Congress (allegedly) is debating about actually cutting spending. As usual, the same insipid concessions are being touted while no one will target the areas that actually need targeting. Farming subsidies, various Federal agencies that control usurped powers that belong to the state and yes, our idiot tax system would be good targets for reducing spending. I will not support any 'compromise' (a word that has become most foul) that involves raising taxes because Congress won't take the initiative to make the hard choices.

I also want to say..congratulations! With Japan lowering its Corporate Income Tax (Actually, individuals pay taxes, not business entities), the USA now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. When the Federal 39% level is added to state tax liabilities (12% in Iowa), the hit can be as much as 51%. For years the left and the right have blamed each other for the loss of jobs in the USA, but now the true culprit has been revealed. Why in hell should I start up a business if 51% of my profits are going to be taxed away? Taxing Capital and Labor is STUPID. All that it acomplishes is to drive capital out of the country with a resulting decrease of actual and potential labor opportunities. It is estimated that 3-8 trillion dollars are held in Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs) due to the tax situation in the USA. OFCs represent one of the myriad ways a taxpayer can legally cheat. If you want labor and capital to come to the USA instead of leaving it, a consumption tax in place of the costs of current compliance is the way to go and http://www.fairtax.org/ explains how it would work. Not only would this method generate more revenue than the current system we have, it would make the money trail far more transparent, allowing for waste to be cut without stepping on too many toes. I have no intention of holding my breath regarding this matter though because Congress no longer works for the people. If they did, passing the FairTax and abolishing the IRS would be a no-brainer.

There is debate as to whether the 14th Amendment should be modified so that illegals can't gain US citizenship for their babies born in the USA. Its those darned illegals again! I was 23 years old when they passed an alleged 'final' amnesty in 1986, but look how 'final' it became. The only reason that there are less illegals in the USA is because our economy is in bad shape (see above), but eventually our economy will improve. There are some facts that need to be addressed regarding this matter (Don't expect these to be uttered in the hallowed halls of Congress.)

The USA represents something called opportunity. If you work hard and smart, you will get ahead. That is something that doesn't exist in most parts of the world, so regardless of how things are in the USA, they will arrive.

Bothe the Democrats and the GOP benefit from the porous border we have with Mexico. While illegals represent (illegal) votes for the Democrats, the businesses that support the GOP can use illegals to increase their bottom line.. As a corollary to that, do you think businesses that hire illegals but also purchase Congress members are going to pay any actual fines for hiring them?

Our porous border with Mexico is a threat. Some also say the Canadian one is as well, but crossing from Canada to the US is a more daunting task. First off, Madame Winter patrols the US/Canada border for 6-8 months of the year. On top of that, many farms and ranches are right on the border and those areas are patrolled with armed guards. There also is the matter of bears and wolves prowling the wilderness. If you want to solve the problem regardin illegals, dealing with them after they are here is inefficient and wasteful. The problem needs to be dealt with before they arrive.

The solution is pretty simple on the surface (but don't expect Congress to embrace the concept). Ellis Island processed almost 200,000 immigrants a year from 1892 to 1954 using analog technology. If a system of IIC's (Immigration Intake Centers) were set up across the USA, that would kill the incentive to illegally emigrate. You would go to an IIC, fill out forms, be fingerprinted (Yes, so we can keep track of who is where) be charged a processing fee (Perhaps 75 Dollars) and if all went well, you would emerge with a Green Card. The US/Mexico border needs to be fully sealed with Watch Houses constructed to keep it all under surveillance. If criminals use force to breach the barrier, they need to be met with sufficient counterforce. Once the IIC system is in place, you could choke off 95% of illegal immigration for a simple reason: Why enter illegally when you can pay $75 to enter legally? Canadian citizens should be allowed express immigration to the USA and quotas need to be discarded. The less political footballs there are to kick around, the more work that actually might get done.

Not only is our Foreign Policy inane, our Foreign Aid is even more so. What is one of the main reasons other countries like having a US Military presence on their soil? The Answer: The US troops can be used as a single target for the anger of the populace, diverting the populace away from the problems that need to be solved. There is also a solution to this mess as well (but not one Congress would ever propose). We should withdraw all ground forces from the Middle East and Africa and then cut off all governmental aid and support to those areas. Israel can survive on its own both economically and militarily, but if the other countries can't...well they had better learn. Africa has had several decades to learn the proper methods of government, but if they aren't electing murderous thugs into office, they choose embezzlers and thieves. Whatever aid we send them will only wind up in a numbered Swiss bank account. If they actually need help, then tell them to contact their former overlords in Europe (who were initially responsible for the mess in Africa). Because of the strategic importance of the Gulf area, a Watch and Observe policy should be implemented using an AC Fleet. Without US troops around to act as scapegoats, maybe some progress would be made.

Last (but by no means the least), something needs to be done about the career politicians that inhabit the halls of Congress. Though they state that their experience is needed to craft governmental policy, a career politician serves only themselves and the ones who have purchased them, not the people. The definition of a 'hack' is as follows:

"A politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for private rather than public ends."'

but that needs to be refined. A career politician who has become part of the system due to their time in office should also be described as such. A person such as this works not for the people, but against them due to what favors they must repay for getting elected in the first place and the special interests they represent. (This is a real violation of Freedom of Speech). Anyone that has held more than two terms in the US Senate or five or more terms in the US House I consider to be a hack. While some are voted out of office, many only leave when they die. The President is term-limited, the Congress should be as well. One father and son team has held the same House seat since 1933; will it be passed down as real property in a last Will and Testament? I wouldn't put anything past Congress at all.

A Jaded Bard

2010-11-02T13:07:00.000-07:00

My Stances on Various Issues

At times in heated debate with others in a variety of venues, I am often asked where i stand on various topics from the seeming trivial to the far more serious. At times it is hard to type accurately or to answer the questions in a timely manner, so on this election day, i decided to gather my thoughts and post this information.

I have been registered as an independent for 22 years. During that time, I haven't hesitated to call fault with BOTH major parties in the USA versus one or the other, but I find the Democrats to be the most repugnant overall. The country that was founded in 1787 is fast slipping away as the combination of career politicans and an apathetic and uninformed electorate tear at its very fabric. Even directly stated rights in the Constitution are under fire as empty words come from our leaders on a daily basis. Many of my positions are to the right of even the Republican party, but I have arrived at those stances through a long process of both learning and observing. These are some of the more sobering truths I have discovered as well as some highlights of actions in which we shouldn't take pride at all:

- The GOP is responsible for coming up with the Inheritance tax during the Civil War

- The GOP also is beholden to the Sugar lobby and the protectionism of that trade

- The annexation of Hawai'i was a result of the above (1898)

- Both parties protect US farming interests

- The unions usually support Democrats, but Big Business supports the GOP

- Both parties benefit from our porous border

- Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton all directly violated the US Constitution

- It was both the GOP and the Democrats that were culpable for Amendment XVI

- As far as corruption goes, Ulysses S. Grant was the worst.

- It was the Democrats that tried to block Civil Rights reform in the 1960's

- Jim Crow was born in the SE USA

- It was LBJ that allowed Congress to spend SSI payins as they received them (1968)

- There is NO Social Security LockBox

- Both parties have used SSI payins to pad spending since that time

- The last time the federal budget was balanced was by Dwight D. Eisenhower.(Late 1950's)

- A PROJECTED surplus does NOT count (You hear that Mr. Clinton?)

- Taxing Labor and Capital is a STUPID idea

- When a Senate race costs 200 million and a presidential race over 1 billion, something is wrong

- As a corollary to the above, with that much money involved, there is no need to address issues at all

- There are several HARD decisions that need to be made; those solutions are politically neutral.

- No matter how onerous taxes are, the rich will ALWAYS get richer

- However, the tax rate ultimately decides how much the rich are willing to invest.

- The above investment is the only way REAL jobs are produced.

- The McDonalds Corporation produces jobs; the McDonald's worker does not

The list above is by no means exhaustive, but it runs a pretty broad gamut. As to my stances, here they are:

The Federal Government: The US Constitution clearly defines Federal Powers. All powers not specifically defined belong to the individual states. My position is strictly Minarchist: Only enough government to govern and only enough regulation to regulate

Term Limits: Our founding fathers never envisioned career politicians. Thier seriving in the legislature was secondary to their other professions. A US Senator has been in office for 48 years while a US House Rep has been in for 52; as such they no longer serve the people, but only themselves. The term limits I support are one six year term as President, one six year term for Senators, and one two year tem for a House Rep. There are some that say you need experienced members of congress to get things done, but look at what all of that experience has brought us?

Abortion/Gay Marriage: These are states rights that should be decided at the STATE level. The Federal Government was not given the power to regulate such matters. Roe v. Wade should be overturned. If a state votes against your beliefs, you can return the favor by voting with your feet. The US Constitution is NOT the means to settle this issue at all. I am Freedom of Choice (except for partial birth abortions). If the Right to Life contingent would be more supportive of contraception and birth control, they probably would gain more supporters, but as long as they allow radicals to determine their agenda, nothing much will change at all.

10th Amendment Litmus test/ Law Review: I support this action as well; not only does the Federal Government need to be stripped of its legal transgressions, the laws on the books need to be reviewed at all levels of government. What is the purpose of having twelve laws to regulate one action when one or two will do?

Illegal Immigration: This is a matter that can only be addressed in a politically neutral manner. Ellis Island worked well for over sixty years; it can be made to work even better now. All 1,920 miles of the US/Mexico need to be sealed off with prejudice as needed. Once that is done, open up Immigration Processing Centers. Advise Mexico that the current lawlessness on the border will no longer be tolerated. If necessary, a Travel Advisory can be issued or Mexico can be declared off limts to US Citizens. My solution to Border and Immigration matters can be found here.

Illegal Drugs: Alcohol (A Central Nervous System Depressant) and Tobacco (A Central Nervous System Stimulant) kill about 800,000 people a year, far more than any controlled substance. Instead of the Constitutionally illegal and failed War on Drugs, I support The LTR approach ( Legalize, Tax, Regulate). This would not only strip the income from illegal entities, it would go a long way towards curtailing violence on our streets. The drugs would never gain popularity and drug testing would still be in full force. I also support the immediate shock probation of ALL non-violent drug offenders. The freed up space in the prisons could be used for those who actually need to be there. The illegal property seizures also need to end.

Tax Reform: The IRS has grown out of control; it costs taxpayers 10 billion dollars a year just to support this agency. The taxation of Labor and Capital is stupid; all that it accomplishes is to drive Capital out of the US and into OFC's (Offshore Financial Corporations) The end result is almost everyone loses. I am a firm supporter of the FairTax as an alternative to our current system of compliance. If the capital gains tax was nonexistent, WE would become an investment haven. fairtax.org

Education Reform: Once more, the Federal Government does NOT have the power granted to it regarding Education. The Federal Department by this name needs to be removed; Education needs to be emplaced at the State Government level. This would end a lot of the wasteful money transferring that goes on in this area. At the state level, curriculums could be modified to better adapt to the needs of the specific State entity.

Foreign Aid: The USA should discontinue ALL monetary aid to both Africa and the Middle East (Including Israel). Israel can survive on its own and the rest of the Middle East had better learn how to do so; there is only a finite supply of oil. The aid money given to Africa only winds up in numbered Swiss accounts. It is time that Africa gets its act together; they have had sixty years to do so with nothing to show for it. Europe created the mess there, not us. At this time, we also should evaluate other places where we have a military presence and if possible, to stand down from those areas as well.

Extraterritorial Conflicts: there should only be two responses from the US in this area. Either we keep ourselves OUT of a conflict or we deal with it using NO half measures. I am in support of the Hands Off/Observation approach. using this approach, we would not encroach at all upon the Middle East until or unless world interests were at stake. If we then had to get involved, we would use no half measures in dealing with the matter. Even the most obstinate of foes would understand a smoking black piece of earth.

The United Nations: The UN has become a corrupt and freedom hating platform for countries of no real consequence to lecture the US on areas like Human Rights (Sudan?). They are also in my opinion a Criminal organization for refusing to condemn actions by Hezbollah functiong as a governmnetal entity. The UN has wandered FAR away from its original intended purpose. I support removing the UN from the USA

National Parks: The National Parks we have should be given over to the respective states in which they reside. For example, Yellowstone National Park could be more easily administered from WY than from DC. As such, WY wouldn't be allowed to sell off any part of the park or allow encroachment. That also brings up another issue...

State land held by the Federal Government: Except for the lands needed for the Federal Government to fulfill its duties, any other land it holds in the states is illegal. that land needs to come under aegis of the respective State Governments to do with what they wish. The Bureau of Land Managment could be downsized as a result or even eliminated.

The Patriot Act: This was bad legislation from the get-go. We already had laws on the books to deal with such an issue without adding even more laws to the mess. As RICO did in the 90's, The Patriot Act legislation has also gone lateral, used in ways it was never intended to be used. As stated earlier, a review of the laws already on the books would be in order.

Minimum Wage: This needs to be abolished; market forces are sufficient for determing what wages should be paid.

Free Trade/Protectionism: While Free Trade keeps prices competitive, market protectionism interferes with competition, driving up prices. Itis time to strip the government subsidies from farming and ethanol and sugar production and anything else so affected. If the farmers have surplus crops, they should be allowed to sell them on the open market for whatever price they can get from whoever can pay. If farming is no longer profitable without subsidies, then it is time to find a business that is.

Firearms: I oppose registration under any circumstances at all. This includes Federal Registration for items like machine guns. Most all citizens are law abiding when it comes to firearms; only a small minority aren't. Are we going to require criminals to register their weapons as well? There should only be one delimiter regarding weapons: can you safely store/use the weapon? Registration only harms the law abiding citizens. If a criminal wants a firearm, they will get one regardless of how onerous the laws are.

The Role of Government: Unfettered Capitalism has proven to be destructive; almost as much so as the opposite end of the spectrum. Corporations need to be regulated, but no more so than necessary. the same applies to people; as long as what they are doing doesn't harm someone else, they should be allowed to do what they wish. If you have to prove to the government that you can do something, that is tyranny, but if the government has to prove you can't do something, that is freedom. Anything less than freedom will always devolve towards tyranny.

Space Exploration: There was a time when only governments had the wherewithall to launch rockets and other such things, but that time has passed. The US Government has only paid lip service to the idea of returning to the moon sometime in 2020 while their means to do so has become yet another acrimonious political football. It is time for private enterprise to step up to the plate and for government to back off; the potential for profit is far more of a constructive driving force than any sort of governmental approach. We could be back to the moon by 2015 if not earlier. As for those who claim that it is a waste of resources, it wouldn't be at all. A moon base could be used to construct larger craft for further exploration while a telescope on the moon would do better than any LEO (Low Earth Orbit) device.

Conclusion

There you have it. Once I could sit and collect my thoughts, this post wasn't that hard to write at all. Now that this is done, I will start looking over election results.

A Jaded Bard

2010-10-25T13:01:00.000-07:00

Secular Government: A Long and Arduous Path

It is almost amazing in this modern day when an analysis is conducted regarding the state of Islam in the world. While at least three countries ( Mauritania, Iran and Pakistan) are directly under shari'a law, many others ( Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Yemen, and others), are shari'a in all but name. Considering the strong adherence to such a set of laws, you would think that the result of such would be benevolent to the people that live under the law, but such is not the case. Despite the great wealth of some of those countries, illiteracy is rampant, infrastructure is next to nonexistent, and shari'a law denies even the most basic rights to females. With the situation as described, you would think that there would be impetus for change, but instead, the Islamic world appears to be gravitating towards even a more fundamentalist interpetation. While many wish only for peace, a small but growing vocal minority are demanding that the west become more shari'a compliant. Why would the west even consider such a goal after seeing what shari'a has cost the countries who practice it? Shari'a law is the law as stated in the Qur'an, thus any countries under shari'a law are in essence theocracies. The west has learned that theocracy is an unworkable form of government; we already tried it. Why doesn't Islam recognize the failure of such and strive for change?

Secular government didn't happen in the west overnight; it was a long and painful process that not only was directly impacted by humans, it was also impacted by politics and dogma at various periods in history. The following highlight some of the milestones in that struggle.

Circa 33 CE Information from records kept at that time stated that Jesus Christ from Nazareth was crucified for preaching blasphemy against the established polytheistic pantheon of Rome. Though the Catholics denote Peter as the first Pope equivalent, Catholicism was not the first Christian religion; The Coptics and possibly the Nestorians predated them. Many saints came from this period (33 CE - 312 CE ) due in large part to persecution by the rulers of that time.

312 CE Despite the difficulty of separating fiction from fact. it is known that the emperor Constantine's soldiers went into battle with some sort of representation of the cross on their shields. Though Constantine probably didn't convert to Christianity on that day, he did end persecutions of christians and was responsible for calling the Council of Nicea. Also contrary to what probably happened, canonical laws regarding the Trinity and worship of God were not addressed at this time; those matters weren't settled until later. The important thing to remember here is that Constantine called for the Council, further strengthening the hold of Christianity over the empire.

480 CE The last Roman Emperor was deposed in the west; the Dark Ages began. At this time, there was a lot of proselytizing occuring as the christian faith was spread. At the time, it should also be noted that literacy wasn't prevalent outside of the churches; there was no need for it. This gave the church and the faith even more power over the converts to their religion. Constantinople would stand as a beacon for almost 1,000 years after that event

632-732 Upon the death of Muhammed, Islam erupted across the land, carried by the fervent armed with swords. It only took one hundred years to carve out a dominion for the new faith; they were halted at Constatinople in 718 and at Tours in 732, thus containing the first major challenge to Christianity. The victory at Tours cemented the faith in Christianity as not only an unifying factor, but also as a position of power, a position it wouldn't relinquish for over 1,000 years. This was the last major contact between the two faiths for over 350 years.

1099 The taking of Jerusalem was one of the high points of Christianity; the task had been undertaken under the auspices of holy priority and necessity. The Crusaders at that time were no better then the Islamic fervent; upon taking the city, they slaughtered all not of the Christian faith. They held the city under thrall for almost 100 years.

1191 For the first time in its history, the church had to settle for an unsavory compromise ( later on such a situation became called a Devil's Deal). Though King Richard had defeated Salah-Al-Din's army on the field, he was denied the needed resources to once more take Jerusalem, so a compromise was reached. King Richard leftg the land, but in return, christians were promised safe passage to Jerusalem. Once more, a lull occured between that time and the next clash of religions.

1200's An inquisition was launched by the Catholic church against those it perceived as its enemies. The Catharites and the Templars were wiped out and their wealth was confiscated. Many of the majestic churches and universities came to be in this period of time. It could be said that this was the apotheosis of the power of the Church; even Kings and Queens were not above their authority.

1348 With the advent of the Black Plague, the Church suffered its first loss of power. The plague killed with no discrimination at all; no one was safe from its scourge. Even the prayers to God were of no avail. The plague would return over the centuries, only dying off in the 1800's

1453 Constantinople ( Istanbul) was stormed and taken by Ottoman turks in the name of Islam. The final bastion of eastern christianity was gone.

1500's This was yet another pivotal time for the church in Rome. Not only did turks threaten the heart of western Europe with their armies, a person my the name of Martin Luther proclaimed that no person had the right to stand in the way between man and God. The Turks were beaten off with heavy losses, but Protestantism had been forged from the fires and was here to stay.

1600's When Galileo postulated a helocentric (sun-centered) theory versus a geocentric (earth-centered)one, action against him was swift and brutal. He spent his last days in confinement at his house for daring to challenge one of the most powerful pieces of dogma around at the time. This attempt to hold power along with the Wars of Religion ( mid 1600's) spelled the shattering of the paradigm of the church holding absolute power.

1700's Isaac newton didn't directly challenge geocentrism; instead, he proved the heliocentric theory using collateral proof that was given to the common man to peruse. Though it wasn't until 1758 that the Catholic church lifted the ban on heliocentric tomes, the damage had been done. As a result of their discovered perfidy regarding Galileo, Deism began to take hold in some areas of the world.

1787 As the culmination of their victory in 1781, the newly formed United States of America drew up a Constitution. This didn't happen overnight, though; six years of acrimony and argument went into its creation. The first amendment spelled the end of a church controlled governmental entity...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Those sixteen words had far-reaching consequences. For the first time in history, the government wasn't allowed to interfere with the religion of its subjects and nor was a religious entity allowed to interfere in governance. People were protected in their right to worship God in what way they chose or even to disavow the concept if they wished.

Islam has had almost 1,400 years to grow and adapt, but will they somehow manage to discard the yoke that shari'a law has created or is shari'a law so intertwined with Islam that this action isn't possible? They need to find some means of doing so if the followers of Islam wish to grow beyond the bounds of what is their current paradigm because the misery that is suffered by those given no say in their future can easily lead to rage and anger and all of the irrational acts that follow from such emotions.

A Jaded Bard

2010-07-24T05:41:00.001-07:00

The oil rig explosion: Shoddy construction or deliberate destruction?

By now, I am sure that most everyone is aware of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico due to the blown out BP rig. They now have a sort of cap on the leak to stop most of the oil outflow, but the cleanup will be costly and messy. There is one question still nagging at my mind on the matter, though:

Was the destruction of the well a terrorist act?

At the risk of sounding overly paranoid, lets consider the facts. The oil rig was destroyed and a lot of oil escaped into the Gulf. Due in part to this disastger, a lot of oil exploration and drilling has been curtailed, some of it indefinitely.Iif I were a oil producing country, this would be excellent news since without our own oil exploration, we have to import more oil.The ME is no longer much of an issue in that regard because we get less then 15% of our oil from thatr area. (The USA learned a valuable lesson in 1973; the embargo forced us to look for oil sources closer to home or in lands not as hostile to us.) Not only does that happen, but you get the added bonus of destroyed sea-dependent livelihoods which will force the US to import more from abroad to replace what was lost. Of course, we aren't allowed to call them terrorists anymore because it might hurt their feelings, but I was an adult (thankfully) before Political Correctness came into vogue. I call things as I see them; if the rig was deliberately sabotaged, then what should the saboteurs be called instead? Politically/Peace challenged activists? I don't f*****g think so at all. Even if i am wrong on this case ( I actually hope that i am), it brings to mind another question:

Is BP Responsible for the mess that was created?

Damn right they are, At the least, they are guilty of colossal stupidity brought on by 'the bottom line' and at worst, they should be charged with criminal negligence. When undertaking ANY sort of risky venture (drilling into the sea floor a mile down assuredly qualifies), you MUST plan for the worst case scenario and proactively have a solution on hand to address it. The pilots of Apollo 13 could easily have died out in space, but apparently NASA at the time considered such a scenario and brought the pilots back alive. Three Mile Island could have been a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl, but multiple failsafes were built into the design. There is no argument that we need the oil (pending some new energy discovery....Fusion anyone?), but cutting corners to maximize profits is NOT thje way to go about such a venture as deep sea drilling. Chances are that BP will be paying billions before this mess is over with, but a little proactive management (despite the cost) can save a lot of money and grief in the long run.

A Jaded Bard

2010-04-14T19:08:00.000-07:00

A Rant for Tax Day

Soon, yet another April 15th will be upon us; while many people will be complacent regarding the matter, there is a rising tide of disgust and disillusion as well. It is on this date that your taxes are due, when the culmination of frantic searches meshes with the obscenity of the amount of time spent navigating the morass that is our tax code.

It wasn’t always like this; up until 1913, the federal government made enough from tariffs and such to run in a reasonable manner (minus the tax imposed during the Civil War), but all of that changed with the passage of Amendment XVI. While the amendment had many who supported it (the amount of wealth the robber barons amassed was considerable.), there were near as many who stated that this was a bad idea. THe tax rate wasn’t even that high at the start; most people paid one percent of their income. By 1919 though, this one percent had jumped to six percent while the top tax tier now stood at seventy seven percent. In order to further conceal the amount of tax the people were paying, withholding came to be at around the time of WWII. Needless to say, income tax assessments became a prized political football as it was kicked around and manipulated by the politicians for votes. With the creation of Social Security courtesy of FDR, another item was withheld from the paychecks of the workers.

In this present day, this income tax has become pervasive and deliberately more complex; it is of course designed to ensnare as many people as possible in its net to create the most possible revenue, but somewhere during this process, it became onerous and it nearly has a life of its own. At the time it was created, taxing capital and labor seemed to be the right idea; after all, most of the capital was held by the very rich and the middle class had yet to emerge from under the shadow of Laissez-Faire capitalism, but that was then while this is now.

When one studies the matter in its entirety, only one rational conclusion can be reached: taxing capital and labor is plain stupid. With the convoluted tax code that we have, there are countless methods of legitimate cheating to either pay a reduced tax on your capital or exempt it from tax in its entirety. OFCs (Offshore Financial Corporations) are but one of the myriad ways to do so. Only the rich really have access to such vehicles as this, so if the tax burden on the rich is increased, this simply means that more capital will be sheltered outside of the USA, benefiting only the one holding the wealth. This is not even taking into account Social Security (which is also taken from capital and labor). At some point, the payins for Social Security will be less then the outlays, requiring either an increase in the tax or the cutting of benefits. If the rich avoid paying their taxes (by the way, they already pay their fair share of them), who pays them? The middle class does since they do not have the capability of hiding their money.

I used to be able to do my taxes with a pencil and a scratch sheet, but apparently that is no longer the case. Even at my income level, there are at least seventeen ways I can deduct from the bottom line, reducing my tax burden. How could things have become tso complicated? It largely has to do with Congress. As I mentioned earlier, the income tax rate is a prime political football; it is raised and lowered at various times depending on the state of the economy. The Congress makes the tax code deliberately confusing so that jobs are created in that sector as well. With the advent of withholding, it makes it far easier for Congress to hide their actual spending too. Ca we really expect any sort of meaningful reform when such is in the hands of those who benefit from the current system? If you think so, then I have some desert land in Florida for sale.

As I stated before, taxing capital and labor might have been a good idea back in 1913, but it is a stupid idea in the present day. The only result of this is that capital and labor will flee this country, putting a heavier and heavier tax burden on those gainfully employed. It makes more sense at this time to tax consumption instead. The costs of tax compliance are already built in to the products we buy; a one dollar loaf of bread has around twenty three cents of tax built into the price. Under the FairTax, that twenty three cents would become a consumption tax for that item. By issuing a prebate check every month that covers the tax up to the poverty level, millions of people would become untaxed. There would be no more 1040 crap along with its associated headaches

The FairTax would make the tax stream far more transparent not only because a lot less people would be paying it, but its sources could be far easily tracked. The current process of withholding once more works to the advantage of the Congress.

Another aspect of this which many will disagree with is that no matter how onerous the tax burden becomes, the rich will always become richer. In the process of the aforementioned, it is the less well to do that pays the price.

This concludes my rant for April 15th; I suppose that I will have to put my pencils and scratch paper away, because there will probably be even more convoluted deductions for next year.

2010-02-19T12:53:00.000-08:00

THE SECULAR RIPOSTE

On occasion, I am the overjoyed (bah!) recipient of one of those pass-it-along letters bemoaning the fact that prayer is not allowed in our school system. Since I am sure that letter will still show up in my mailbox at some point, and I, to date, have seen no reply of note to that letter, here is my reply.

Some say that no prayer in school

is an ill begotten, odious rule

They protest this rule like stubborn mules

Since those who decreed this must be fools!

So I studied the tomes of history

(no revisionist crap, with its perfidy)

I wanted for myself to see

If it was fools that made the above decree

From times innumerable, again and again I saw

Masses of sheep cowed by Theocratic law

Was it the wrath of their God they were fearing?

(Or was organized religion social engineering?)

For the acolytes of faith were not God, but man

(who claimed to know the divine plan!)

“And only through me”, said they, “Would God you see!!”

(Why is it they seemed like con men to me?)

II.

Then in the 1000’s A.D.

The Pope at the time made an onerous decree

Head ye all south to the Jerusalem shrine!

To reclaim it for your God divine!

For the Caliph taunted the Pope to his face

Jerusalem is all ours, this holy place!

(Even a King would not dare wreak that disgrace!)

So came the Crusades to teach heretics their place

And the hypocrites received absolution from God

As they raped, pillaged, murdered, tortured and trod

Upon temple and Mosque, and Statue and Synod

(Such a shining example of government and God!)

Then the early 1200’s came to be

Another power-mad pope with an odious decree

Catharites and Templars committed HERESY!

(The truth: Church coffers were as barren as can be.)

After they slaughtered and excoriated the sinners

It was only the church that ended up winners

With the blood money they earned, they built learned spires

(Was this God’s, or man’s desire?)

III.

The 1500’s brought Protestant flames

Still Religion and Politics though, mixed up the same

The acolytes of power were responsible for this game

(Since we showed they were men, then man is to blame!)

The 1600’s brought learning, but man still had not learned

With the wars of religion, and witches to burn

Galileo was crucified on an Inquisitional Cross

Because the acolytes needed control of man through their god, regardless of loss!

Though explorers sailed the seas

The lands they found were for Christianity

Not at first were these lands for humanity

Which led to even more calamity

But the sanctified excesses of Organized Christianity

Pushed many an objector over the sea

And, while still, there were some calamities

For the first probable time, man was free.

IV.

Until, 100-odd years later, there arose a new state

Whose founders sought ills to ameliorate

After much contentious , spirited debate

These men did sunder church and state!

So, now let’s return to the present day

Where many are jealous of the USA

The Theocratic states are all in disarray

As their acolytes still murder and slay.

Because the founding fathers chose to delineate your rights

They debated and argued, day and night

And just in case they did not get it right

They allowed it to grow with futures light.

So now we should allow prayer in our places of learning?

(They do in the Caliphate polyglot)

Because it will soothe our perpetual yearnings?

Or maybe bring peace? (Alas, it will not!)

You say there would be choice in what was preached

(But I have shown you how often that was breached!)

Government, onerous and massively grown

Has proved humans will grind their own

Because when you mesh a church and state

The non-conformists would be branded ingrates,

Heathens, heretics, or worthless liars..

Perfect for fanning a Pogrom’s fire!

Be thankful that it is this way,

Instead of a malignant theocrat holding sway

Such that I can ignore religious decay

While you wait in rapture for judgment day

We are free to worship in our hearts

With little fear of being sundered apart

So on reflection of that allegedly odious rule

I am glad there is no prayer in the schools!

A Jaded Bard

2010-01-17T12:58:00.000-08:00

The Justification of The Bill of Rights

It seems to me that whenever I pick up a magazine or a newspaper to read, I see such headlines as ‘Death to America, the Great Satan!’ or ‘America, the Place of Violence!’ From other sources, it seems that the impression of an American is the equivalent of the Anti Hero in “For a Fistful of Dollars”. We do not all walk around with Serapes on and a .44 Colt on our hip, ready to settle any argument with hot lead. And yes, we have a problem with crime and violence and the other ills of an urban society, but if the United States of America is such a bad place, why do we have to keep people out? Some of the same ones who will scream ‘Death to America!’ are only too glad to be here in this country. If that isn't enough, there are people that find the US Constitution even more confusing as they refer to the USA as a Democracy (Which it Isn't) versus a Republic (Which it is)As a small effort to allay the confusion and possibly change the conception of America, the following is an interpretation of the Bill of Rights with an attempt to relate these enumerated laws, via explanations, to injustices in the past. The United States of America is a Republic with many democratic and Commons Law traditions; it owes its existence to the concepts of Democracy, but it is more then that. No matter what rights the commons are given under Commons or Napoleonic law, they are nothing if they can be taken away at a whim. All American citizens have the protection of the enumerated rights our Constitution provides. It took over six years before the US Constitution was formally constructed, and it is a living document with relevance even to this day.

. (The first ten Amendments were ratified Dec. 15, 1791, and form what is known as the Bill of Rights.)

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Explanation: At the time the Constitution was ratified, the wars of religion in Europe had only ended less then 150 years ago, and Spain was still under the aegis of its Inquisition. Many abuses of power stemmed from matters of a religious nature; it was decided to separate the two upon this nations founding. Without the government being involved in any specific religion, it provided an atmosphere of tolerance; on the flip side of things. religion would no longer be used to create and establish law, resulting in an atmosphere of freedom If you control what information the people receive, you by implication also control the people. A free press ensures that not even the rich and powerful will be able to hide their crimes or wrong doing. Instead of the government using its power to simply stop any protestation against its doings, peaceful assembly was allowed for the first time in history.

2. A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Explanation: Along with the First amendment, these words form what I feel is the backbone on which all of the other amendments rest. Regimes of the past would make it illegal for citizens of the regime to possess weapons that would threaten the regime; the usual end result was abuse of power, then a massive loss of life to restore the balance. This amendment was based on the fact that if citizens were allowed to responsibly own weapons, than the government would not be as likely to abuse its authority. This also largely came about as a result of the Revolutionary war, where at first ammunition was in short supply due in part to an edict restricting ownership of firearms. The founding fathers also had a healthy mistrust of government, stating that an overly large government starts to serve its own needs rather than the peoples. Though the core meaning of this amendment is still in force, it has been eroded in its authority in this present day.

3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Explanation: Another way of abuse of power in the old regimes was to forcibly quarter soldiers with the populace, consuming their food, confiscating their property, and posing a visible threat to liberty. This was a most effective way to enforce order, but also a way to inflict abuses upon those forced to quarter troops.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Explanation: If the King suspected a citizen of its kingdom to be doing wrong, they would just send in sufficient force to determine if this was the case, regardless of justification. This amendment was placed in this document as a protection from unlawful search and seizure, requiring a specific reason or warrants to conduct a search, and only for the items listed. Unfortunately, this right has also been eroded in the present day.

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Explanation: This amendment addresses multiple grievances. With the exception of military forces or in time of war, you must have formal charges brought against you for a serious crime. You may not be tried for the same crime more than once. Due process of law must be used to confiscate any property of yours. You are not required to give testimony against yourself and the government may not take property from you unless compensation is granted. The judicial systems of the European monarchies spelled doom for the poor and crooked justice for the rich. If these governments needed your property, they usually just seized it without any warning or need to justify their actions. This right has also been eroded in the present day.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Explanation: The Pogroms, inquisitions, and the legal injustices throughout Europe in the past were notorious. Once you were arrested, you could easily be kept in a prison out of the public eye to be dealt with at a later time. If you are tried for a crime in the USA, the trial must be expedited at the soonest opportunity. You must be informed as to the nature of the crime; you have right to see all witnesses against you, and are guaranteed representation even if you can not afford it.

7. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Explanation: This amendment limited the power of judges who were often appointed by those in power, essentially allowing citizens parity with the powerful. With the exception of a legal appeal, a judge or higher authority may not go against a decision of a jury.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Explanation: In the past, the rich could buy themselves free while the poor languished. Punishments such as Drawing and quartering and torture were also commonly used not only to punish, but to extract confessions under duress. This amendment guaranteed uniform treatment of the rich and poor in this respect.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Explanation: No law may be placed in constitution that would either conflict with current laws or negate them, a necessary protection regarding the Constitution itself.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people

Explanation: The founding fathers of the USA had a severe mistrust and fear of a powerful central government. This amendment was put into place to prevent the central government from usurping its authority. Unless a power is specifically delegated to the Federal Government, said power belongs to the respective state. This amendment is currently under contention at moment because some feel that the federal has already overstepped its bounds. If taken in its context, the Federal Government has no right to regulate Education, Gay Marriage, Abortion, or any state lands owned by the aforementioned entity past what it needs to fulfill its duties under the Constitution.

Though this is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the Bill of Rights, it is a basic understanding.

As I have shown, there is historical justification in all cases for the enactment of these original amendments.

The constitution was designed in a way as an open-ended document. This would allow it to grow as the country grew and times changed. There are 2 basic sorts of laws in the constitution. The first are the direct laws as written in the document. The second is what could be an “implied right”. An implied right is usually settled in the Supreme Court, and is itself open to modification as time passes.

Example: The statement “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is a direct right as written in the Constitution. The determination that this also prohibited prayer in the public schools was decided in the Supreme Court in 1964.

One other aspect of the Constitution is that an individual state may not adopt a state law that conflicts with any of the amendments. The Constitution preserves the right to bear arms. A state may require registration, permits, and deny ownership for good cause, but a state may not prohibit ownership by a law-abiding citizen. On the other hand, there is still a case pending regarding the State of Arizona who is suing over federal government firearm registration guidelines due to the fact that in the Arizona State Constitution, there is a law making registration of firearms illegal.

A Jaded Bard

2009-12-28T10:32:00.000-08:00

Introducing……The Astroliner*

*The following is a theoretical/extrapolative concept/construction only; at this point, it only exists via several rather crude line drawings created by this blogger. Once more: This craft does not yet exist!

Of rockets and trips to outer space

Ever since first satellites and then living beings have been traveling to space, rockets have been used. Other then perhaps more boosting power and different fuels, the technology hasn’t changed much since that time. Even the hallowed Space Shuttle is in essence a rocket. And guess what its replacement will be….you got it! Yet another rocket!

Rockets are rather simple to use as well as largely being simple in design. What payloads need is enough of a boost to escape the gravity well that is part of Earth. Despite their frequent use, there are at least three noted drawbacks for using such a method to boost people and cargo up into even LEO (Low Earth Orbit):

- Rockets are assuredly up to the task as a multitude of successful launches can show, but they are the poster child for inefficience for doing so. Even a LEO shot takes a staggering amount of fuel. Rather then keep on using throwaway modules and such, the time has come for a powered and reusable module able to take off and land unassisted.

- Due in part to the massive amounts of fuel required, rockets are inherently dangerous. As the 1986 Space Shuttle accident showed us, one errant spark into the massive amounts of fuel needed for boosting people and payloads in orbit can result in a catastrophe. If what fuel that is needed is contained internally, that would drastically increase the safety factor.

- Third most, the carriage capacity of the rockets we use is severly limited. (The most that a Space Shuttle can carry at one time is seven people.) Though we have proven that we can land a person on the moon with the technology we have, more capacity is needed on a per flight basis in order to lower the number of flights and the associated risks that come with it.

You would think that a means to address the above issues would be at least on the drawing board, but to date, I have seen nothing of the sort. It is time to take several well tested technologies and figure out a way to merge them into the next generation of space faring craft. This craft would combine the vast cargo capacity of a C-5M equivalent with the V/STOL technology perfected during the time of the Harrier Jump Jet….

Introducing….The Astroliner!!!!

I can bet that many who are reading this blog post are saying something to the effect of “What in HELL is that?” I am one of the many that is AutoCAD challenged, so I had to resort to three imported vector drawings. The following are notes related to the above picture:

1 - Primary pilot control of the craft. Area is designed as a breakout box and could be detached from the primary vehicle in case of an emergency. The module would have limited internal power if separated from the craft, but would provide a potential extra layer of safety.

2 – Secondary pilot control of the craft. This module would be attached to the Passenger Compartment (4)

3 – These appear in a pattern that goes almost all the way around the craft. They could be one or more of several features including, but not limited to:

- Shielded high resolution cameras

- An electric grid active across the entire craft (Could be useful for destroying space debris before it possible damaged the craft itself or maybe as an added barrier against the cold of space or the heat of re-entry)

- Even though this concept is far reaching and altruistic in its goals, we are after all human beings. Denoted places could possibly also be used to mount a weapon system for protecting the craft.

4 – The passenger module for the craft. Ideally it would be able to transport 100 people along with their space gear. It is attached to the secondary pilot control module as a single breakout box which could also be ejected from the craft if the need arose. Like the primary module, it would have limited power if detached from the main craft.

5 – An airlock access for linking up with other craft or even other emplacements in space.

It gets even better in the following picture:

The above picture is a theoretical side view of the craft; the numeric values are described as follows:

1 – A side view of the primary pilot module. As stated before, they would have control of all of the craft form that area. If an emergency happened or the equivalent, control could be passed to the secondary pilot module

2,3,4,5 – From left to right, they are the side view of the secondary pilot module, an empty gap useful for preventing a terrorist takeover, the passenger module, and the airlock for exit from the aforementioned area.

12 – Airlock egress for connecting to other craft, other structures, or possibly for EVA purposes.

6, 8 – Cargo transport and storage areas. While the nose cone and rear areas would not open as they would using a C-5M, load/unload ramps would be a part of the cargo bay construction; the efficiency of this method was not lost on the author of this at all, but you want a combination of minimal exposure to the harsh environment of deep space along with a quick and efficient way to offload what cargo that has been brought. To keep the cargo where it is supposed to be, magnetic locking would be useful. (As a means of amusement at one time, I brought up a concept of “Electro-Magnetic Velcro” or EMV.)

7 – The central power plant for the craft. This needs to be covered in more detail later in the post.

9, 10, 11 – From left to right, they consist of the forward thrust vents (2), the area for maintaining and monitoring the V/STOL modules, and the rearward thrust vents (4)

The theory behind this design is that the central power plant (7) would generate the power to run the front and back vents as well as the V/STOL array described in the next picture.

Needless to say, this design might well be in violation of most all things flight related, but probably the most major component is why I opted to design at a ratio of 2:1 rather then a ratio of 3:2 which I saw on many other craft including the Space Shuttle: V/STOL ports/nacelles on the wing areas

1 – The bottom of the Astroliner would be fitted with a total of twenty Nine (29) limited rotation /fixed V/STOL nacelles. There would be a large one at the nose of the craft, 24 others in groups of six each, and two each on the wing area. The lift from the V/STOL nacelles on the wings should compensate for its smaller size in relation to the craft

2 – Landing flat on the ground would probably not be good for the craft, so not only would wheels be needed (for a runway takeoff/landing scenario), but also a series of landing struts ( for use in V/STOL mode)

3 – Once more, the peripheral areas could be used for observation, an electric grid that may help protect the craft regarding some collisions and a place to mount defensive weaponry if such became necessary.

4 – Frontal jet intake/nacelle. Not only could it be used to assist during a runway takeoff, it could also be used to damp forward motion so that the pilot could then use the V/STOL nacelles to land.

5 – Rear jet vent/nacelle. The only major use of this would be to give the craft sufficient thrust to move it out of the gravity well created by the Earth or thrust to move it quickly along to whatever future destinations that may be attempted...

Implied Needs regarding this craft

Before I hear the cries of “You forgot….” there are many other aspects of this craft that need to be included in its construction such as:

- Not only will heat shielding need to facilitate reentry, but also a durable outer skin would need to be constructed. Deep space is a harsh environment.

- Perhaps even newer, stronger composites will have to be invented. (Several have already been incorporated into the large planes that travel the skies.)

- The landing struts as the wheels will have to not only be strong enough to support the weight of the craft, but they will need to be strong and durable enough to withstand repeated use in both the rigorous conditions of deep space as well as on Earth.

- Without the benefit of an atmosphere for shielding, radiation levels would be an issue as well. The craft would need adequate shielding from the effects of the aforementioned.

- Despite its plane configuration, this craft will be first and foremost a space traveling transport. Not only would pressurization be a requirement, but hermetically sealing compartments would also be needed as well as other precautions unique to traveling in outer space.

- Repair materials to cover most any contingency would need to be stored on the craft in case an EVA is needed for repairs. Space is a hostile environment after all despite its beauty.

- If the craft design becomes space worthy, over time, different configurations could be built, such as one where the forward cargo bay is converted into a lab or where one is converted into a passenger liner.

- Because the craft would be a cutting edge design, it would need to be built with (constant) future upgrades in mind, both physical as well as electronic based.

- Autopilot technology is almost one hundred years old. A craft such as this would definitely need such a system in place, but obviously one far more computerized then what was around in 1914. Needless to say, the crew needed to operate a craft like this would have to be highly skilled and educated in a number of fields beyond basic flight knowledge.

- Perhaps there are other aspects that should be included in this list; if so, they have not been deliberately omitted at all. If (or when) a craft such as this is built, it will be the culmination of a lot of technology, most readily available now while some would have to be adapted or even invented for such an ambitious undertaking such as this.

Holy Star Trek, Batman!

If you have read this far, you may be either shaking your head or laughing uncontrollably, but if that is the case, reread this post. The craft described in the included pictures is buildable using our present technological level. The C5A cargo transport has been around since the late 1960’s; V/STOL capacity even longer. It is the matter of merging the technologies and breaking (not so) new ground to make this craft a reality. There is nothing ‘Star Trek’ about its design at all.

However, there is one exception to this statement, though with some research and testing, still not out of bounds using what we already know…

Powering the Astroliner

In the side view of the drawing presented earlier, the lower section of the craft was denoted as (9, 10, 11). The areas the numeric values describe are as follows:

9 – Forward jet port (or however they are denoted) consisting of two side by side apertures. It serves two purposes: First off, it will assist in lifting the craft from the earth out into space. Secondly, it would be used to damp forward motion so that the V/STOL technology could then be used as well as making adjustments using V/STOL data input. If the craft wound up being landed as a large plane, these forward vents could also be used to slow the craft down upon landing, similar to what a passenger jet does.

10 - This area comprises the 29 V/STOL apertures denoted in the drawing. They would also be able to exert thrust, but in a more or less downward fashion. Though they would not have the 90 degree rotational ability of their jet counterparts, they would have limited circular mobility within their confines. They would be controlled by a computer for the most part, subject to human input for the desired action.

11 – Rearward jet port consisting of four side by side apertures. This array would be responsible for most of the initial lifting of the craft; it could also be used for such on a longer trip through space (Such as to Mars.)

The lower portion of the craft was so delineated due to essentially the whole marked off area being used for the thrust nacelles so listed earlier. With such a complicated set of engines, a highly skilled crew would need to be on board for monitoring, maintenance and service of the array. As stated before, we have decades of experience in building such propulsion devices; the Astroliner design is for the most part doable.

As both ships and submarines have proven, a nuclear reactor doesn’t need to be of a massive size to do its job. The Astroliner design would involve a large amount of fuel, but if said fuel needed to be carried on the craft that would defeat its purpose. The only way to minimize the weight of the craft in regards to its power requirements would be using a nuclear reactor prototype of some sort. The number reference of “7” is denoted on the side view cutaway as being the power plant for the craft, but therein lays yet another design challenge.

A Steam turbine setup or the equivalent is not viable for a deep space craft, so a means will need to be found to convert the energy from the nuclear reactor directly into the needed thrust to propel the craft with out irradiating the general area in the process. V/STOL engines and research have been around for over fifty years. The reactor that would need to be installed would have to be even more compact then what is used on naval vessels, but also able to generate the massive propulsion power that would be needed. The weight of the solid fuel that would be needed otherwise would make the Astroliner an unworkable proposition.

The control of the power thus generated would once more largely be in the hands of a computer (or several for purposes of redundancy), but would have a human interface as well. Once this craft was landed, a standby mode could be initiated. This would provide only a trickle of power to the thrust array, but would prevent freeze ups or a potentially long restart period. The reactor on board would also provide other primary power as needed for the craft to function. Regarding the propulsion systems needed for the Pilot and passenger modules (In case the craft had to be vacated), that would have to be figured out as well.

Conclusion

If (or when) this craft is constructed, it would represent cutting edge technology; not only would this craft be able to fly to the moon, but it could possibly be equipped to take us to Mars or maybe even beyond there.

I personally do not think NASA is up to the task for a project this massive in scope; once something like this becomes politicized, it then becomes a political football put to use for either gathering votes or as a chess piece of sorts in the morass that represents our Congress these days. Private enterprise not only has the potential funds needed for this enterprise, they would approach the matter with an overall better eye regarding efficiency and safety. The potential long term profits would be enormous, but it would take private enterprise to stay focused to the task with their eye on the prize.

As always, I welcome all comments on this post whether good or bad.

A Jaded Bard

2009-12-25T09:46:00.000-08:00

The Moon by 2020? No…The Moon by 2013

It was on May 25, 1961 that John F. Kennedy addressed Congress and stated that the USA would have a man on the Moon by the end of the decade:

“... I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important in the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. He never lived to see his vision become reality, but on July 20, 1969, the US did put a man on the moon; it was a shame that he did not live to see his dream become reality.”

John F. Kennedy before Congress - May 25, 1961

This space race was fueled by the Cold War that raged at the time; the USSR was the first nation to put a man in orbit. The US did not intend to be upstaged again. After a few other visits to the moon, the last visit was in 1972. Numerous scientific advances resulted form this ambitious program, but since the last moon landing, no human or craft has ventured out from Low Earth Orbit.

Since that rather heady time, there has been Skylab and Mir and since 1982 or so, the Space Shuttle program. The Hubble Telescope was lifted to orbit in 1990; the pictures it takes are awe inspiring to say the least. Shortly though, the year 2010 will be upon us; it is time that we go back to taking large steps at a much faster pace then the speed of government.

This is not the moon of yore

On November 13, 2009, a probe deliberately collided with the moon. Though it didn’t detect a very large amount, water was still detected on the moon in the form of frozen particulate. This discovery has broad reaching implications. If there is water on the moon, it could be converted into drinking water as well as its energy potential regarding hydrogen extraction.

Upon being presented with the information from the mission, the best that our President could do was to make a sort of vague promise that we would go back to the moon ca. 2020 or so. Considering the state of our federal government at this time, that simply isn’t good enough.

Going back to the moon in 2020 is not a dynamic and forward thinking pledge at all; we need to be back there in force much sooner then that. This time it isn’t a Cold War space race; it is a needed goal for the future of the human race!!

Getting There – Private Enterprise or NASA?

Back in the time when we first went to the moon, such an endeavor was only really possible by governments with not a small boost from their military personnel. With the awarding of the Ansari X-Prize though, that may no longer be the case. Though a sub-orbital launch is not even Low Earth Orbit let alone a moon shot, private enterprise has shown that it is not only up to the task, it can do so with not only efficient cost but overall efficiency as well.

Despite the fact that NASA has outside help in its missions and projects (The Space Shuttle components were made by three large aerospace companies), it is still a governmental entity subject to the whims of funding as well as the attitudes of Congress. As with most any governmental agency, efficiency is not its highest priority; if there is a funding shortfall, it is the tax payers that produce the needed revenue.

Private enterprise does not have that capacity, though; this almost ensures that there will be a minimum of waste as well as an eye-on-the-prize mentality which would have a minimum of obfuscation.

There is a report due shortly upon the president’s desk which doesn’t paint a very rosy picture as far as NASA being able to even afford to go back to the moon, let alone Mars. There is a brutally simple way to get around this potential choke point. Cut NASA out of the loop!

The Cost of Getting to the Moon

It would be foolish to say that something of this scope would be cheap and inexpensive, at least in the initial start up stages; to quote a cost of billions of dollars wouldn’t be that far off of the mark. This is not to say that something like this could be implemented at NASA, but once this matter is politicized, the cost overruns and earmark slop will soon follow. If NASA can’t lead the way, they need to step aside for those who are capable of doing so.

This matter would best be addressed by placing it into the hands of private enterprise. The billions needed are there and in return, allow private enterprise to profit from the industries that come to be created as a result, from cargo/passenger transport to souvenir sales and tourist venues. To motivate the aforementioned, limited tax credits should be offered on what monies are invested. For those who would be ready to scream ‘unfair’, there is nothing ‘unfair’ about that incentive at all. Private enterprise would be investing a lot of money up front with returns on that investment most all long term in nature. They would also be taking all of the risks in that regard; cost overruns and mistakes and failures would come out of their own pockets; it would also be foolish to imagine this undertaking to be an error or a casualty free enterprise.

Flying to the Moon

Since the first launches into low Earth Orbit about fifty years ago, the standard way of doing things is to boost a payload into orbit using a rocket device. Even though they do work, they are a monument to sheer inefficiency as well as being inherently dangerous. They are limited in cargo capacity as well as their ability to transport passengers. A Theoretical/Extrapolative replacement will be discussed in my next post. Its tentative name is the Astroliner.

What would be the benefits of going back to the moon and why is it that the future of the human race is at stake?

The benefits of undertaking such a task would be near endless, but there is also the matter of the future of the human race to consider. Rather then use two separate sections to answer what is in essence a dual question, it is possible to be more concise in this format. Despite the fact that the human race has come a long way since we first came to dominance on the earth, we still have a long ways to go. The following is at best only a partial list of benefits as well as problems that could be alleviated once we are on the moon to stay:

- The world population stands at over six billion as of now; even though it is possible that the growth rate may slow down, it will not cease to be. As countries gain more population and become even more crowded, where will the human race go once the earth has too many people living on it to support them. Our only option is to move out into space. The moon would be only the first step to that goal: The Second Mass Diaspora. ( Future of our Race)

- One of the worst ills the human race suffers still is nationstatism. Nationstatism is not only a waste of resources, but contributes a lot to the various states of human misery on the planet. Perhaps once we make it to the moon, the nationstatism can be left on Earth. (Future of our Race)

- Once on the moon, a jumpstart could be applied to most all of the emerging fields of xenoscience. Humans would have another planetary mass to study along with the puzzles and new discoveries that would go with it. (Benefit)

- The largest percentage of fuel is used on a launch to escape the gravity well of Earth. Once on the moon, a shipyard could be constructed; craft launched form there would have no gravity well from which they would need to escape. (Mars or the Asteroid Belt anyone? (Benefit/Future of our Race)

- Perhaps as technology progresses, the moon could be terraformed to be made inhabitable over its entire surface. (Benefit/Future of our Race)

- As touched upon earlier, if private enterprise led the way back to the moon, then they would profit from moving passengers and cargo as well as the selling of memorabilia and other such tourist items. Imagine a Moon theme park with a zero gravity area or a xenogarden composed of what was found on the moon and revitalized. (Benefit)

As stated, the above is probably only a partial list and even then only the readily noticeable ones. The only question remains is this:

It isn’t as if we don’t have the needed technology and expertise to make this a reality. But will private enterprise be ready to step up to the plate if or when NASA/The Federal Government falters?

That remains to be seen

A Jaded Bard

2009-12-02T06:44:00.000-08:00

An Open Letter to the GOP

It is now about 13 months since the 2008 elections. Not only did you lose the presidential election, the Democrats now have majorities in both the House and the Senate. Except for Sarah Palin resigning her Governor post and selling one million copies of her new book and some rather piecemeal objections to the Universal Health Care plan, there doesn’t seem to be that much activity at all from the GOP. Perhaps some of you are wondering where you went wrong while others are adding up the chits they own and the favors they are owed to see if they have any viability for 2012, but that is almost three years away. Your biggest concern right now should be 2010.

First off, you might ask ‘Who am I’? I am nothing more then average American citizen who once thought that the GOP represented change. I tore up my GOP registration card in 1988 when you allowed your party to be co-opted by the religious right and decided that the status quo was good enough. By doing so without producing any other ideas or either a viable candidate or platform, you lost the election in 1992 and in 1996. Since 1988, I have considered myself an Independent as far as party affiliation goes. There are quite a few of us out there with more being created in every election cycle (not just the presidential ones); we have decided that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent any sort of change at all, only statism in its most deadly ossified and stratified form. Many refer to the GOP as the Republican’t party while the Democrats are called the Demorats for good reason.. Know this and learn from it:

We will not blindly follow a candidate because someone decided to stick a ‘GOP’ tag upon them. The GOP decided not to define their party platform properly, echoing solely what the Democrat candidate promised us. (Look what we have now!) The GOP also did not present a viable candidate in 2008.

We will not support any such candidate as stated above. Perhaps if the American people had a real choice, they would vote with pride rather then acting as if they only took a lesser dose of poison.

Until you actually define yourselves as being Republican, not Democrat light, you can expect to lose more seats in the Congress.

The 2008 election was a joke. The economy was in a slump, but what did you do? Against a Democrat candidate that appeared youthful, vibrant and full of energy, you ran someone that looked old and tired and on his last legs. What in hell else did you expect? Didn’t you learn from 1996 at all? What is even more ludicrous was that John McCain wants to ‘fix Washington’. How exactly was he going to do that? The McCain/Kennedy Immigration bill not only would have provided the government with an endless income stream, it would have given the green light for even MORE illegals to cross into the USA. The fact is that Senator McCain has been a senator for over 20 years; to me, he seems to be part of the problem that needs fixing, not any sort of solution.

The way I see it, if you once more wish to hold power in Washington D.C. , you will need to first define your candidate as someone who actually believes in what they are saying and then define your party as an actual different choice then the Democrats. We, the people, are tired of hearing the same old garbage from BOTH parties as states’ rights are usurped by the federal government and our very basic enumerated freedoms are under a full scale attack. If you want the votes from the people like me, you will have to stand for something in which we can believe.

Defining a candidate shouldn’t be that hard, but the GOP made the same mistake in 2008 as they did in 1996. It is time to put the fossils out to pasture instead of digging up yet another one to run in 2012. You need a candidate that is dynamic, energetic and looks like they will get the job done. It is the time of the Baby Boomer regardless of what the old guard would like the people to believe.

Once you have defined your candidate in a proper manner, you will need to do something that will take a lot more work: You need to define your platform! This doesn’t mean that you recycle all of the vague promises that your opponent also supports; you come up with your own stances on issues that will set you apart. There is always some risk involved, but at times risks must be taken even if the rewards are not immediately forthcoming. The time for taking a stand is NOW!

There are a number of pressing issues that confront the USA with challenges and potential pitfalls, but now isn’t the time for half measures. How can The GOP define its platform? Here are some ideas.

Support HR25 (This would reap the most benefits)

When you think about it in the broad scope of things, taxing Capital and Labor is pretty stupid unless your desire is to mask actual spending. All that taxes on Capital and Labor will do is drive them out of the USA to Offshore Financial Corporations or to other countries where the tax is lower. Our current tax system is a morass of rules and regulations so obfuscatory that even tax preparation companies have difficulty navigating through the maze. The costs of compliance with the current tax code are ruinous. The current system not only is an incentive for people to cheat, in some ways, it encourages the practice. Why should a taxpayer pay 36% tax on capital gains in the USA when they can pay 5% tax with an OFC? A consumption tax in place of the mess we have now is business friendly and with the Capital Gains tax at 0%, the USA becomes the place where money is invested. With the money flowing back into the USA, the cash crisis will be solved in short order. When the voters see more money in their paychecks, they will be quick to remember who was responsible.

Take the SSI pay-in receipts out of the hands of Congress and Stop taxing SSI Benefits

When a politician goes on record saying that such and such an action will affect the Social Security lockbox/ trust fund, it makes them look very stupid. The SSI pay-ins that are supposed to fund Social Security are spent as soon as they are received; it has been that way since 1968. Since that time, those receipts have been used to mask actual spending at the government level. Furthermore, taxing Social Security is taxing a tax that was already levied; that is double taxation.

Support a REAL Illegal Immigration solution

From 1892 to 1954, Ellis Island processed ca. 200,000 immigrants a year and that was using analog technology. With the technology we now have, we could easily process far more then that number on an annual basis. This would be the basis of a new US Immigration policy called Open/Controlled Immigration. Quotas will be tossed into the garbage while native born Canadians will get an express immigration route into the USA (They already speak English.) The other aspect of this new policy would be to completely seal off the US-Mexico border to stop the criminal element. The Ellis Island styled Immigration Processing Centers would kill off almost all incentive to illegally enter the USA. They will enter this country anyways, so this is a means of not only letting them enter legally, we will KNOW who is entering. (We really have no idea at all at the moment who is entering the USA.) A solution to this issue will have to be politically neutral if it has any chance of becoming law. The full details are here: http://thejadedbard.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-radical-solution-to-illegal.html

Become and advocate for States’ Rights (Another Hot Button Topic)

There is a seemingly endless list of powers that should be in the realm of the states that have been usurped by the Federal Government. The U.S. Constitution specifically defines the powers that the Federal Government possesses. The Tenth Amendment then reads as follows: (Hopefully you DO remember there is a Constitution?)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It is rather simple in its wording, but there is much beyond that simplicity. If you take a look at the Federal Government these days, you can easily find examples of usurped powers that do not belong to the Federal Government at all. Some examples:

- Gay Marriage (Not listed as a Federal Power)

- Abortion (Not listed as a Federal Power)

- Education (That includes the Federal Dept. of Education; this is a STATE’S right!)

- The ownership of land beyond that which is needed to fulfill the Federal Government’s purpose.(That land belongs to the states in where the land exists.)

To attempt to use the U.S. Constitution for the purposes of banning Gay Marriage is obscene and represents a violation of the tenets upon which this country was founded. The massive waste of money resulting from these usurped powers should also give you notice that it sorely needs repair.

In conclusion, perhaps instead of generating even more disgust amongst the electorate, you should think of constructive ways to harness that disgusted electorate to once more become the Republicans versus the Republicant’s.

Any and all commentary is welcomed regarding this post.

A Jaded Bard

Before you reform my health care, reform my government first....

2009-06-10T00:45:00.000-07:00

I think perhaps it is time to quit smoking

I was forced to take another sick day that shouldn't of happened at all. I had a hackers cough so deep and persistent that I wasn't able to get any sleep until well in the afternoon. My job is doing geriatric care and you need to be alert and functioning to do so. I also work the third shift, so not getting to sleep until 3:30 in the afternoon is not good at all. My reasoning is if I didn't smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, the cough and a persistent low grade fever wouldn't have been there at all.

I don't remember the exact day I started smoking, but I do remember the month. It was March of 1979 and I was 16 years old. For some reason deep down, I thought that smoking would help me be accepted in what social circles that existed when I was in high school. It turned out that things didn't change at all in that regard. I was on the outside looking in before, and I still was after, but now I am saddled with a habit that has cost me a lot of money and some missed time at work.

Have you ever seen someone suffering from COPD ( Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder)? The often need extra oxygen to breathe and the slightest bit of exertion leaves them out of breath. I am only 46, but at times I find it hard to breathe; what will it be like thirty years from now if I am even still alive? My wife also smokes cigarettes, but I know I can do this. I have to remember that there are NO dfisadvantages to quitting at all, only advantages. I find it strange that it was easier to stop drinking alcohol and doing drugs then quitting the cigarettes. I no longer wish to be around drug use, but even when they are staring me in the face, I no longer have any interest in them.

This is also a message in part to any teenager who thinks that smoking will make them look more adult and cool and who might think it will get them accepted. Take it from me; it will NOT do anything for you at all!! Instead, you will spend a lot of disposable income to smell like a burning ashtray and as such, you will only be welcome around others who smell the same. It will not change who you are or introduce you to a life of glamour at all. You will still be you except you will have an addictive monkey on your back. I was alone and lonely during high school; I hated that time of my life with a passion. Smoking cigarettes didn't change any of that at all. I am not your mother nor your father; my only claim is that I have already been down that road, so I am knowledgable about this topic.

There is so much I still want to do with my life. My latest interest is writing fiction. So far I havent sold anything, but I sure as hell intend to do so. My immediate goal is to get something, anything I have written sold before the end of this year.

Can you believe that cigarettes are now about four dollars a pack? If I smoke two packs a day that is 730 packages.or $2,920 dollars down the drain. There is one aspect of quitting that sort of appeals to me; quitting has to be the most selfish thing that you will ever do. You can't quit for someone else or some vague ideal; you have to do it for yourself. I have failed numerous times in achieving this goial. I have tried injections and nicotine gum and counseling, all to no avail. If I am to quit smoking, I will have to do it myself; I will need to walk away from it like I did the alcohol and marijuana. I only hope my wife will be supportive in my effort, but the effort must ultimately come from me and me alone.

This is all for now; I need to get this monkey off of my back for good.

Tim

P.S. After thinking about the matter for awhile, I decided to post my Highlander Novel on a fan fiction site. This novel is based on the characters from Highlander: The Series. Read it in its entirety here:

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5050355/1/Highlander_A_Kings_Justice

2007-06-06T17:55:00.000-07:00

McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill arises again in all its obscenity

My last post before this was a modification of an earlier post. In it I outlined a radical solution to the immigration problem that cut the political aspects from the equation. Initially I thought the McCain-Kennedy bill was dead, but from the ashes it arises again in a still virulent form.

This 'compromise' is exactly what it says it is. The Democrats compromise, the Republicans compromise, and we get sold a load of crap that is supposed to be a solution to the problem. First off is the issue of these Z-Visas. THe illegals are required to pay a fine to get one. I heard that it was $5000 plus $1500 for processing. Allegedly only so mnay of these would be issued a year, but what is to stop a politician from campaigning on a promise to raise the total number? This also is yet another incentive for illegals to arrive in the USA with money in hand while allowing the federal government yet another endless revenue source.

Another thing this bill trumpets is the "Extra Border Security" that will first be in place beofre the rest of the bill is implemented. The border will not be sealed at all; it will remain as porous as it is now. To think it actually will be sealed off is preposterous. How else will the federal government mine the illegals arrivng for $6500 per person? What ever border security that is put in place will not be enough to contain the massive numbvers of illegals who will have been given a green light to enter the USA at will.

In conclusion, it is apparent to me at least that the federal government can not be depended on to get things done that need to be done. If The current Congress can not do its job, maybe it is time for a change come the first Tuesday in November.

A Jaded Bard

2007-06-06T17:02:00.000-07:00

My (Radical?) Solution to Illegal Immigration (Plug the Bucket Redux)

On April 11.2006, I wrote the original post regarding a radical solution to the illegal immigration problem we have in the USA. As of now, there are an estimated 12-20 million illegals in the USA. We really do not know who they are or where they are, but this matter needs to be addressed as not only a matter of national security, but for the welfare of every citizen within the borders of this country. Due to the pending possible passage of an OBSCENITY of an Immigration bill, I decided to repost this entry with hopefully all the typos cleared up and more explanation for some aspects of the solution. Thanks to all who have been sounding boards and contributed to the thought process that went into this post. – TheJadedBard-

Should I have been surprised at Congress tabling any immigration reform bills until they return from recess? No, I was not surprised at all. Actually, I am beyond disgust at this issue. I remember back in 1986, when that Immigration Reform Bill was to be the final solution to the issue. This bill gave amnesty to about 3 million illegal aliens. Now it is 2007; almost six years ago, an attack was carried out against the WTC by terrorists. We have now in place even more draconian laws to deal with the terrorist threat; it seems that Congress is better at passing laws then repealing the ones that are pointless and stupid. The 1986 bill it seems was NOT the final solution to the problem, because now we have approximately 12-20 million illegals in the USA. You would think that all of the current bills up in Congress would address the root of the problem, but all that they do is give citizenship to the illegals already here and set the stage for even more to come across the border. It is no secret that Mexico uses illegal immigration as a venting system for its inefficient, corruption-besotted government, but the issue has finally come to a head: Do we allow the porous border we now have, or will it take another attack before the government gets enlightened? Or will another attack provoke an overreaction response? This remains to be seen.

It is time to face some harsh political realities involving the US-Mexican Border and the immigration issue in general, such as:

No Democrat will seal the border because illegal aliens can be converted into Democrat Party votes. (Spare me the feigned outrage. I have lived in TX, AZ and NV; I know this happens)

No Republican will seal the border because they who have purchased a GOP member comprise a lot of big business; illegal aliens work for much less than a documented worker, often times with no benefits, thus increasing the corporate bottom line.

A supplement to the above is that no matter how much the government says it will fine businesses that hire illegals, it simply will not happen to any degree that matters. Under our current system of politics, you can be assured that the businesses that hire the illegals contribute heavily to the Congress that crafts the laws. Guess who the laws will favor? While we have the system we have in place, where protection from said laws is directly dependent on who you can afford to purchase in Congress, do not expect employers like Wal-Mart to be paying any fines at all, unless a sound-bite is needed for an election.

Taking into account all of the above, the only real solution to this matter will take something that cuts across the Democrat and GOP prejudices, essentially cutting their politics out of the equation.

At the moment, we have NO idea who is crossing into the USA from Mexico at all except for the minimal amount that actually arrive here legally. The Canadian border is nowhere near the problem that the Mexican one is due to a variety of factors like the Canadian standard of living, the winter weather, and the wolves and bears about. Securing the Canadian border would not be anywhere near the problem that securing our southern border represents.

What will it take to get a proactive solution to this problem: A thermonuclear device smuggled into the US from Mexico and detonated in LA? It is well known that California has the most use for illegal labor; some say that removing the illegals would cause an economic depression in the state. Would a smoking black nuclear depression in LA be a better solution? Actually, the results from such an action would provoke a definite overreaction probably to the opposite extreme. This also would not be a real solution to the problem.

Look at it with this analogy: You have a leaky bucket into which you must place water to transport it. The leaky bucket is our border while the water represents the illegal aliens. You could use the leaky bucket to transport water, but water still would leak all over the ground, going everywhere with out you knowing where it is going. If the bucket were sealed up so it did not leak, then the water that you transport stays in the bucket; you know where the water is going. If the water is poisoned, you can dump all the poisoned water in one place and be confident none of it leaked on the ground, where it might harm your plants. This is valid ONLY if the bucket is sealed first. If the bucket is leaking, potential poisoned water goes everywhere. To add to this, if the flow of water is controlled so that it only can emerge though a specific place or places, then you are allowing water to fill the bucket, BUT you have control of the water situation.

My Proposed Solution

I have laid down why the current system will not be rectified (the specific reasons why no pending legislation will seal the border), and drew up an analogy for a solution; now lets get to specifics. The bottom line is that the border that separates the US and Mexico MUST be sealed, and not just a few 100 miles of it either. My proposal is twofold though, because we not only need to control the flow of water so that sufficient amount gets to the USA, (immigrants) but we also have to plug the bucket (our currently porous border). Therefore:

The US-Mexico Border will have two barriers erected from Brownsville to San Diego. The frontal barrier will consist of a 25 foot high Concrete wall buried 5 feet deep in the dirt for a visible height of 20 feet.
75 feet further north of the barrier, a 20 foot electrified chain link fence will be erected once again from Brownsville to San Diego inclusive.

This could be accomplished in 6 months, considering the aridity of the border area. I know some people will say how will we pay for such an expense, but consider how much money is spent from illegals using our services in the USA. The reason for the 75 foot gap is to allow constant patrol of the border. If some enterprising individuals decide to tunnel underneath the wall and fence, thermal imaging will detect them. As tunnels are discovered, blow them closed and block them. If the coyotes and narcotraficantes want a border battle, they will be sharply reminded of the last time Mexico challenged the USA in battle.
Objective: You have succeeded in fixing the leaky bucket, (the porous border), but that is only part of the problem. The USA still needs workers for its economy. How to control the flow of water? By allowing Open Controlled Immigration at ESTABLISHED entry points. Why open but controlled? The quota system the USA has is yet another political football that can be used by the politicians at election time. For example, it is insane to make a Canadian citizen who already speaks fluent English wait in line behind someone from Burkina Faso, but that is how our current system works. The fact is that this only now works for the politicians and not for the greater good. It is time to dump it in the trash can.

Ellis Island

“Ellis Island is a symbol of America’s immigrant heritage. From 1892 to 1954, this immigrant depot processed the greatest tide of incoming humanity in the nation’s history. Nearly twelve million landed here in their search of freedom of speech and religion, and for economic opportunity.”http://www.ellisisland.com/ellis_home.html

That URL makes for some interesting reading. In approximately 60 years, Ellis Island processed around 200,000 immigrants per year using the technology available at the time. As I recall, some of my ancestors came through Ellis Island. It was a no-frills processing center that dealt with as many as 12 million immigrants that came to the USA seeking opportunity. That worked at the time; we have a lot more resources available to make it work better even now. But why have just one? Why not have 10 or 20? The following locations would be ideal for housing Immigration Intake Centers. (IICs):

North of San Francisco
Calexico, California
Nogales, Arizona
South of Las Cruces, New Mexico
Del Rio, Texas
McAllen – Brownsville, Texas
North of Tampa, Florida
Jacksonville, Florida
South or North of Wilmington, North Carolina
Glasgow, Montana
Seattle, Washington
Flint, Michigan
Virginia, Minnesota
Watertown, New York
Calais, Maine
Sunbury, Pennsylvania
Caliente, Nevada
Twin Falls, Idaho
Alamosa, Colorado
McCook, Nebraska
Paris, Texas
Rolla, Missouri
Vincennes, Indiana
Beckley, West Virginia
Savannah, Tennessee
Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Tuscaloosa, Alabama

What would the purpose of this be? These locations will be modern day equivalents of Ellis Island. Their job would be processing immigrants into the USA. In many of the above locations, already existing facilities could be converted to the task. This will control the flow of water (immigrants) into the country. You have just removed the incentive to illegally enter the USA. This in combination with sealing the border addresses multiple issues such as:

Removing the incentive to illegally enter the USA. (If you are a law abiding individual, you can go to an IIC and emerge with a green card.

California will have all the workers they need for their economy.

It will be rather hard to hire illegals if there are not many to be found. If there are no illegals to be found, then there is no need to fine businesses for hiring them, is there?

Those alone address a large part of the problem, but there still are other issues to be addressed. Read on!

The illegal aliens currently residing in the USA

The implementation of this system I proposed would not be in place overnight, but with prioritizing, it could be in place in a year. The sheer amount of illegals in the USA makes rounding them all up and deporting them problematic. There is no realistic way this could be done. A far better method would be to have themselves round themselves up……for a true FINAL amnesty! Once the IICs and the sealed border is in place, post notice all over the USA, from coast to coast and border to border: ALL illegal aliens currently in the USA have 180 days to report to an IIC for processing. If there are no issues with who they are, they emerge with a green card, plain and simple. It will be an offer they could not refuse; most would jump at the chance. AFTER that grace period, any illegal not showing up to be processed would be fair game. When found, they will be branded Persona Non Grata and permanently deported. We already sealed the border and they have been flagged. Any attempt by them to show up at an IIC, they will be flagged again. We can also do the same for the illegals in prison: once released, permanently deported. This may be considered a reward to many Americans, but the porous border we have had for so long requires some leniency. This will truly be the last time we are lenient. This is the purpose the IICs inside the USA will serve: processing the illegals already in the USA. The IICs themselves will also provide a multitude of jobs in the USA, including some in areas badly in need of employment opportunities. This system can also correct another major flaw in our current immigration policy.

Most of the people in Canada speak fluent English; no ESOL training would be needed. Native born Canadians will have an express immigration route to the USA; this is only fair. They would also be subject to any constraints that other immigrants would be subjected to beyond their favored status, including permanent ejection if found in the USA illegally.

There you have it, a radical plan that cuts across political considerations and solves the issues ensconced within this dilemma. To review:

- The main route into the USA illegally is fully sealed off with a continuous barricade.
- Any attempt to circumvent the barricade by sea on either end would be contained by the US Coast Guard; that is what they do after all.
- All incentive is removed for illegal migration via an IIC
- A true Final Amnesty that solves the problem once and for all and removes the political consideration from the equation.
- Rather then have the goldmine obscenity of the cost of the various Visas outlined in the current bill up for consideration, processed applicants could be charged a fee of $75-$100 for the process, enough to cover the expense of processing them and fund the IIC itself. This in essence reins in big government.

This will also have a positive effect on our southern neighbor, Mexico. As I said earlier, they use illegal immigration to the USA as part of their governmental policy. With that outlet blocked off from use, this will produce internal change in the country for the better. If the criminal elements south of the border wish to start a firefight at that location, the US can easily respond in kind. It can essentially be said that anyone attempting to cross the barrier is someone that does not want to be caught going through an IIC. In other words: A criminal.

Possible Objections

How will we pay for all of this? How much are we paying every day now while more and more illegals flood into the USA? How much do they cost state economies in health care and law enforcement expenditures? No criminal or never-do-well is going to risk going through an IIC and be caught. They will be the ones trying to sneak in illegally. They are the ones we do NOT want in this country at all. The barrier and the IICs will eventually pay for them selves, as well as provide decent work opportunities for bi-lingual and multi-lingual people.

It is a violation of the illegal immigrants’ rights to bar them from a better future! No, it is a violation of OUR rights that we have to suffer the flood of illegals into this country with essentially no controls at all. OUR tax money pays for what services in the US they use and OUR law enforcement has to waste manpower in rounding them up. The barrier is to preserve our sovereignty and increase our safety. They can go to an IIC because, if they have nothing to hide, they will get a green card and be allowed to be in this country legally. Of course if they have a criminal record or are persona non grata, then your argument is void. We are not entering their country illegally and putting a grievous load on their infrastructure; it is OUR right to protect this country and know who is entering it!

They will come in by sea then! A far more difficult means to enter, and we do have a Coast Guard. Also, by putting an IIC at either end of the barrier, this would once again take away the incentive to illegally immigrate to the USA. It also would be of little difficulty for the USCG to put up an electrical/digital skein to catch those who try to enter.

In Conclusion

I have yet to see any Immigration reform bill in Washington DC that addresses the border first and foremost. There is NO point in offering amnesty with an open border because more will flood in for the next round. McCain- Kennedy even goes as far as to encourage more to flood in, because the federal government will collect $2000 from each illegal in the country (can you say endless revenue source?) I will vote against any candidate or incumbent that:

Votes for amnesty without sealing the border first.

Votes for any proposal that allows the federal government to milk this issue for its own personal gain, disregarding any security risks.

It is time to make this Immigration reform a true and final answer to the issue that we face. My solution is workable and addresses the issues that need to be addressed. I welcome all commentary and suggestions either pro or con.

A Jaded Bard

Predictions for 2007 and Happy New Years!

2006-12-31T19:24:00.000-08:00

2007 Will be here soon!

In less then 2 hours, the year changes to 2007. It has been an interesting year, not with out its peaks and valleys. Here is to the new year and whatever it may bring!! My predictions for 2007:

Fidel Castro will not live through the year. Expect some trouble from the speedboat owners in Miami as they may try a different version of the Mariel boatlift of 1980. Whoever takes over in Cuba, do not expect things to be the same as under Castro either.

Russia will rear its head as they resurrect the bear of old; though the country will not be the USSR of yore, it sure as hell will not be free.

Expect the democrats to get some revenge for 1994-2006. If they ruin the economy or call for a draft, expect 2008 to be probably the most fiercely contested election to date.

Expect some sort of incident in the USA which may give impetus to fully sealing the Mexican border.

Expect more support for the FairTax as this grass roots movement gains steam.

Here is to a Happy New Years for 2007!

The Jaded Bard

Why I am a BIG L Libertarian

2006-12-17T15:51:00.000-08:00

Why I AM a Libertarian (Big L Variety)

The following is a refute to the following article  I found online as an argument against Libertarian philosophy: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/NoLibert.HTM

Immediately I noticed that it is your intent to lump all Libertarians into one group for the discussion. As with Democrats (Damnocrats) and Republicans (Republican’ts) , we run the political spectrum and gamut as well. On the one side are those I call ‘Learyan”  as in the late Timothy Leary; this sort advocates no laws or rules at all; a sort of soft anarchy. On the other side would be an Authoritarian Libertarian, whose governance would be no different then any Rightwing dictator. Do I attempt to lump all liberals into a single category, like thinking that all of them espouse Hillary Clinton’s views. No I do not.  Do I also lump all Republicans into the category of the polar opposites of Hillary. No I do not. And rather then only refute the position Libertarians supposedly take on drug legalization, I decided to address your whole article, segment by segment.

Government and Mental Health

Government equals force…..period. The concept of Constitutional Rights has to be weighed against the unseemliness of the homeless. The care is available, but when you start “forcing” people into a care capacity, who will pay for this? The least amount of force to affect a result of a positive nature is always the best course. Efforts need to be made to streamline the process and make it so it is closer to home; in other words end the federal government mandates issued to states using extortion. At the state level, let the states deal with the issue as best they can. MORE government will not help in this instance at all. All it will do is provide even more opportunities for politicians to steal even more funds for themselves.

Freedom of Communication

The Federal Communications Commission is a needed governmental oversight agency. A lot of freedom could be created though by striking antiquated or archaic laws in place regarding communications. Communications companies are corporations, and as such some regulation of them is needed. Over-Regulation is what most Libertarians despise.

Protection of Privacy

Such screening does not violate the rights of employees, provided it is used in a uniform fashion. If you are applying for such a position that requires such testing as a pre-requisite, then it falls to you, and NO ONE else to toe the line to make the grade. It is a rapidly fading concept called personal responsibility. The onus is upon the employee to present the best foot forward. If you have illicit drugs in your system or something to hide, that is not a prospective employers fault; despite the fact I think many employers have unrealistic expectations, they have a right to protect their bottom line.

Immigration

I posted a solution to the illegal emigration issue on my blog: http://thejadedbard.blogspot.com/  This is a critical problem that needs to be resolved. In short, any amnesty bill passed without sealing the border first will only bring more illegal aliens into the country. As it goes, we have no idea who is in this country at this time.  Employers who contribute millions of dollars to purchase politicians will never really be fined for the reason I just mentioned. The border between the US and Mexico needs to be sealed like I stated in my blog; the Canadian border also needs to be watched. If you reduce the flow of illegals by 96%, then it sort of takes care of the problem of hiring them as well as rounding them up.  Then, an amnesty will truly be the final one. It gets better then that, though. Ellis Island served as a point of entry processing station for a long time; we can construct similar facilities as I stated in my blog entry. This would take away the incentive to illegally enter the USA and put the people smugglers out of business.  The US gets the workers we need, we know who is here to work, and you clean up several other problems at once. I know there will be issues regarding the harshness of the solution, but a country has the right to protect its borders after all.

Freedom of Association and Government Discrimination

There was a time when Jim Crow rode on high in US society. That time is no longer here; the very anti-discrimination laws that purported to protect the rights of minorities are themselves discriminatory. Once more, it is a matter of that trait called taking responsibility for ones actions. What you put into an effort is what you will get out of it. The NAACP advances nothing but its own agenda while the ACLU seems to be rather selective in what liberties it supports. The California University system discarded its Affirmative Action policies and it seems they are doing just fine with it. As for returning to the Jim Crow days of yore, it will not happen. The continued success of the USA depends on co-operation, not territorialism and cultural intolerance.

Women’s Rights and Abortion

In no part of the US Constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to regulate this issue. As such, Amendment #10 takes effect. Each state should come up with its own state law regarding the addressing of the abortion issue.  The same application regarding woman’s suffrage should also be dealt with at a state level, if it is not already in place. Wyoming gave women equal rights before the rest of the country did; woe be to any state candidate who would stand against such.

Families and Children

Once again, you are lumping us all in as one group. Child labor laws were and still are a needed regulation; it was one of the last vestiges of laissez faire capitalism to be erased. Education is a necessity, but the US Public Education System is in dire straits, no thanks to all of the federal governmental interference. The federal government needs to allocate this issue to the states, as per amendment #10. In addition, full audits of the various public school districts need to be conducted, so as to streamline the places of education and make them far more relevant then they are today.

Inflation and Depression

The federal government has the power to mint currency in use by the USA, but it remains to be seen just how well of a job they have done in more recent years. Fiat currency is currency whose only backing is the grace and faith of its issuer; as such, it is not tied to anything of value. Politicians love this, because they can always print more and more money as needed. All it will take is a precipitous drop in faith of the issuing government to derail the fiat currency they use. The more money that is printed, the less net value the money has in worth in regards to the whole.  Pegging the value of a currency to a precious metal controlled inflation quite well; one ounce of silver is still worth the cost of four gallons of gas, but a dollar bill will not get you even a gallon. http://www.libertydollar.org  is gaining in popularity these days, because sooner or later, all fiat currency is going to hit a wall.

Finance & Capital Investment

The SEC is necessary to regulate fiscal and securities entities to make sure they play fair. Our investment infrastructure depends on a uniform means of addressing such matters.

Monopolies

Once again, this is not a view most Libertarians take. Monopolies restrict competition and competitive pricing. Ma Bell is only one example.

Government Debt

Once again, this is not addressing the issue in proper perspective. Upon reading the Constitution, the Federal Government is graced with some specific powers, and as such needs revenues to execute them. What most, if not all, Libertarians decry to some degree is by how much the federal entity has overstepped its prerogatives. Some examples:

The inheritance tax ( A Republican obscenity)

Amendment XVI (Democrat & Republican sponsored. Never ratified by the states)

The turning over of Social Security Pay-ins to Congress (A Democrat doing)

Taxing Social Security Benefits ( A Democrat doing; essentially taxing tax)

The Current Income Tax System ( A true obscenity that hurts the economy and discourages infrastructure creation ( i.e. jobs) )

The IRS (Ten billion dollars a year to support this organization.)

The current tax system we have in place is regressive; it encourages cheating, taxes capital and labor, provides a means by which both Democrat and Republican can modify the codes as needed for their own political benefit, and collateral costs regarding compliance are enormous. Also, the higher and more ruinous the taxes are, the more money that will be secured in tax-free or low tax Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs) If I raise your taxes by 100% then cut them by 25%, did I cut your taxes by that amount or did I raise them by a net 75%? Such is how the current tax system works. Many Libertarians are in support of the FairTax http://www.fairtax.org This is only a start to rein in the federal government, whose spending is out of hand. Once again, the FairTax addresses multiple problems for the long term, something the Congress is not inclined to do.

Unions & Collective Bargaining

At one point in time, Unions were a sorely needed entity. This was at a time when laissez faire capitalism wracked the land. This time was nearly 100 years ago or so. In this modern day and age, a more dynamic worker infrastructure is needed; the unions for the most part represent statism. There are some places where the unions are needed; one example is in Las Vegas. Without the unions to counter-balance the Casino moguls, they would run roughshod over the workers. On the flip side of the coin though, the teachers union is an obscenity, whose only seeming purpose is to protect incompetent teachers from being terminated or blocking all attempts at audits or any other sort of reform. If the USA is to survive, we need to take a more modernized, dynamic approach to these issues. One aspect of this is already becoming apparent; many low level jobs are leaving the USA due to the fact they can be done more efficiently overseas. It is the onus of the up and coming working population to take this into account.

Energy

I am opposed to government subsidies due to the fact they restrict free trade. The high cost of fuel and the associated profits also spur alternative energy resources. There is only one power source that could eventually replace oil on a global basis: Nuclear energy. In addition to the N.I.M.B.Y.’s, the environmental extremists also need to be shut down so that alternative energy can be produced on a local and global scale. I also have proposed that an X-prize ( http://www.xprize.org) be awarded to those who can arrive at a nuclear fusion solution. Until that time arrives though, be advised that oil is a needed world commodity.

Pollution

The EPA also needs to be in place. It was created shortly after corporate negligence set Lake Erie on fire. Some regulation of corporations will need to be effected; the morass of laws that now are the standard hurt the economy. Said laws need to be reviewed and streamlined. (Once again, government = force; the least amount of force is the best policy)

Consumer Protection

Standards have to still be set (See the above), but Corporations should not be the victims of litigation due to consumer stupidity either. The litigious state of affairs today is partly due to people abandoning the concept of personal responsibility for their actions and abandonment of parents imparting this concept to their children. The FAA also needs to remain as well; the potential catastrophe that could result without uniform regulations can not be denied. Once again though, regulation streamlining would be of use as well. The same would apply to the FDA and FTC; it was one of the aforementioned organizations that prevented Thalidomide from coming into the USA.

Transportation

Amtrak and Conrail need to be privatized. They are government boondoggles that are a shining example of government efficiency. Perhaps a private concern would close down some unprofitable routes. Well, if the route has enough users, be assured the free market would step in. Federal control over the Freeways has ensured a uniformity of administration, but there is the problem of the federal government using extortionate mandates to co-opt powers not reserved to it in the Constitution.

Poverty & Unemployment

I oppose ALL subsidies, whether they are corporate or welfare. The welfare reform bill was a start in stopping the abuses of the system. The FairTax would create a lot of jobs for the people to take, shrinking the rolls even further. Once again, its choices and personal responsibility; it may sound Darwinian, but that is how it is.

Resource Use

You bet! All federal lands held not for the sole use as per the Constitution shall be given to the respective states. This also means that let the states deal with the National Parks on their soil, subject to some obviously needed regulation. The BLM is a rather useless governmental organization that holds vast chunks of land to which it has no right; Nevada is 88% owned by the federal government. It is possible that the various states may relegate the contract for National Park upkeep to a private outfit, but now said park is a profit vehicle to attract visitors; want to bet the facilities will rapidly improve? As for the land to be given back to the states, let them sell it off at auction.

Civil Service

I see no patronage in this system; just a leveling of the playing field.

OSHA

Once again, corporations need some regulation, but legal review and streamlining are in order.

Controlled Substances

The end to the War on Drugs would be for the people, not the Democrats or Republicans. Those two groups are too busy gorging on illegal seizures and increasing taxes to fund more collateral seizures. Nicotine and Alcohol are as dangerous as any controlled substance, but they are taxed, regulated and controlled. Either one causes 400,000 deaths a year, more then all the controlled substances combined. I personally think marijuana and crack and meth are boring, but as an adult, you should have the right to choose. It’s the very War on Drugs that fuels a lot of the violence that we see; once the non-violent drug offenders are booted out of prison ( where they do not belong), we will then have room for the real criminal elements. Hard drugs will never have the appeal as alcohol and cigarettes enjoy; combine that with drug testing at the workplace, you have another personal choice issue, not a government one.

Firearms

You bet I am for less firearms regulation. As it goes, the laws passed serve only to enable the criminal element. It is interesting to note the higher crime rates in the cities that have the most restrictive firearms laws. Registration also should not be required, even for a machine gun. I do not see the criminals registering their weapons before they use them. Until someone shows that they are incapable of dealing responsibly with a firearm, they are capable of doing so. I am not a NRA member, but statistics show that a criminals worst fear is not the police as much as a armed homeowner.

The Bottom Line

Government is by the people and for the people, not the opposite.

The government should be run as per stated in The Constitution

Only enough government to govern, no more

Unless said action poses a direct danger to society, it should be a responsible adults own choice.

The War on Drugs is only one example of governmental abuse of authority; said war fuels the very violence it is trying to stop. The only winners are the government (illegal seizures) and the drug dealers ( obscene profits)

Somehow, the concept of taking responsibility for ones actions needs to be re-introduced.

Until the above is addressed, I suspect it will be business as usual in our society; in fits and starts, we learn to grow….

The Jaded Bard

New Russia or Newer USSR?

2006-12-01T20:40:00.000-08:00

The Old Russia, a New USSR, or is there any Difference?

The death of a former KGB agent in a most esoteric way started me thinking about what the real sort of political climate exists in Russia these days. His death is not the only one that should have raised some red flags either. This former KGB agent was investigating another suspicious death of a anti-Putin Journalist. She was not the only one to die in recent times either. A second anti-Putin journalist was also murdered. Russia is denying responsibility for the action, but the substance used, Polonium 210, is an esoteric radioactive isotope. It must be deliberately created for any serious useable amount ; it is a very rare natural element. This shrinks the list of countries that would have it to a very small amount,5 at most; Russia is the only one out of the 5 that would have had a good reason to silence this critic of their regime. The following link verifies this information as to the scarcity of this compound. http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele084.html

I think the red flags should have been raised around the time the results of the Duma election of 2004 were made public. In one fell swoop, all of the reformist factions were swept out of power, replaced by people loyal to Putin, old line pre-1991 communists, and at least 2 particularly virulent groups of Nationalists. I find it somewhat amazing that most people I talk to that are under 30 or so see nothing dangerous about Russia, while most who are over that age see something chilling in similarity to what happened in 1917. Consider the following analogies:

In November 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power using a front group( The Petrograd Revolutionary Military Council (PRMC)) to do so. It was not in essence a coup, since the Czar abdicated earlier in the year, but it served as a means to an end.

In December 2004, the Duma election resembled something more like Germany in 1933 then an actual free election. Reformist candidates were attacked, beaten and threatened during the electoral process and even during the election itself. When all was done, the Duma was dominated by only the four groups mentioned above.

Shortly after seizing control of the government of Russia, the Bolsheviks began exterminating every royalist, republican, and anyone else they foresaw as a threat. It was about in May of 1918 that the Bolsheviks stepped forward from the shadows and declared they were in charge. The Civil war that erupted lasted almost 5 years.

With the Duma cleaned of anyone who would have possibly opposed him, Putin went after the Oligarchs who funded the opposition candidates. The one who had Soviet Oil interests locked up was stripped of their holdings and they were forced to flee to exile. Two reporters who were against Putin and an ex-KGB Spy have been murdered since that time as well. All that remains is for Putin and Russia to reveal their true intentions to the world, and if Russian history has anything to say, it will not be a pretty sight to see.

There was so much optimism around in 1991 that it gave one a heady feeling. That soon faded as the world came to realize that Russia had not really changed that much. Replacing the Communists were former Communists who set themselves up as Oligarchs; 90% of Russia’s GDP was in the hands of a very few people. The Russian Crime Syndicate, under the communists only a minor annoyance, grew to full flower in an alarmingly short period of time. Rather then do anything to remove the corruption, Yeltsin and later Putin thrived on it. There is nothing even slightly democratic in Russia now that serves as a government; it is only a thin shell for what lays underneath:
An angry and wounded bear relegated to third world nation status, a Gross Domestic Product less then that of the UK, and an arsenal of thermonuclear devices rivaled only by what the USA has. That is on top of its other domestic problems, such as a low relative life expectancy for its male population and a total failure to improve the welfare of most of its citizens.

The optimism of 1991 has long faded away, leaving a Russia that is only a faded replica of the USSR of yore. I know there are many who say Russia will yet find its own path and eventually do right by its citizens and cease to be the dire threat it is now, but I still remain cynical: A wounded animal is always dangerous, and bears especially so.

The Jaded Bard

2006-10-01T13:24:00.000-07:00

Submission for the Record

The Committee on Ways and Means Hearing on Member Proposals on Tax Issues Introduced in the 109th Congress.

My name is *********************** and I am a FairTax Supporter. I am urging this Committee to give the FairTax reasonable, if not priority consideration as a replacement for our current system. The current system of taxation we have not only penalizes those who produce the capital that drives our GDP, but it is as equally damaging to the workers in the US Economy. The current system is so filled with loopholes, bylaws and exceptions a Tax Preparation company even made a mistake when they filed![1] The current system is an indecipherable morass that not only encourages legal means of keeping income from being taxed, but also provides a springboard for politicians to solicit votes determinant upon adding even more loopholes to benefit those who got them into office. The resulting mess the current system creates is a drain on our economy, the workers in the economy, and the businesses that provide employment to the workers. The following additional information will validate all of my contentions regarding the current system and show that the FairTax is the only way to produce real tax reform.

Tax-Exempt OFC’s versus an even more revitalized economy

When you read about items called Offshore Financial Centers, it kind of makes you wonder just how much capital is sitting inside them. The fact is that they are so secretive that a specific answer may never be known, but a high end estimate puts the amount at 11.5 trillion dollars with Hedge funds possibly being in the amount of 1 trillion dollars or more.[2] Though you can imagine that there may be some alleged concern about this at the Federal Government level, the fact is that under our current tax code this is perfectly legal! The current tax system with its onerous and unforgiving tax on capital and labor even encourages the formation of OFCs! Corporations and high net worth individuals worked too hard for their money only to surrender an obscene percentage in taxes. This damages the US economy in two ways: First, the money sitting in these OFCs and hedge funs is not creating any tax liability, but nor is it working within the infrastructure of our economy. Secondly, the more ruinous the taxes become as our economy grows, the more money that will be diverted to these funds, exacerbating the aforementioned. Who will be the ones picking up the tab for any tax increases, the person or corporation with the OFC, or the rest of the people paying taxes? Be advised that it is our CURRENT tax system that all but encourages this! What benefit would the OFC holders gain if they invested their money? Any profits would be offset by the taxes on the labor involved in investing it, and tax on whatever capital gains they make, so, as it stands, they get a better deal investing in a OFC.

With the FairTax, that all of a sudden changes. Now the only point of taxation is for new goods and services. Capital gains would no longer be taxed. Now that OFC holder has an incentive to bring back the money they have in their OFC and put it back into the infrastructure of our economy. Even a basic economist could tell you what the effect of 11 trillion dollars would have if it were invested into our infrastructure. To the naysayers who say this would not necessarily happen, they would be wrong. High-wealth individuals and corporations will always look for ways to improve their investment leverage. The FairTax is the only way to bring that OFC money back home where it belongs.

Is there really a Fair Tax?

Is there really a fair tax? It is so stated in The Constitution that our Federal Government does have some responsibilities, and the only way to fulfill those responsibilities is through the acquisition of revenue.

Our Current System: Not only does the IRS cost nearly 10 billion dollars[3] to support, the current system encourages people to legally hide assets in OFC accounts that only benefit the holder of the said account while the tax burden on labor and capital reduces opportunities in our economy for gainful employment. The myriad taxes even the poor have to pay are unconscionable to an extreme.

The Flat Tax: At the first impression, this seems like a more equitable system, except when you consider that the tax is still on capital and labor; the workers are also liable for FICA and Medicare taxes on an ongoing basis. Also, the same slew of deductions and exemptions are in place as with our current system, allowing politicians to play political football with the aforementioned. The flat tax also still leaves an onerous IRS or IRS-like entity in place. This solution is no real reform at all.

The FairTax: The FairTax is a revenue neutral 23% federal consumption tax placed only on new goods and services. By refunding taxes up to the poverty level for EVERYONE, it treats all fairly; in essence, the poor would be paying no tax at all. The IRS would be eliminated at a savings of 10 billion dollars, and the tax becomes transparent in relation to our current morass. Instead of funding Social Security and Medicare on the backs of the workers, you would fund these programs from the multitude of purchases made. Under the FairTax, any new product or service would be taxed at that rate. This federal consumption tax would replace the already imbedded taxes in the products we currently purchase. Without the taxes on capital and labor, workers have more money in their pockets and corporations would no longer have any reasons to justify an OFC; those trillions of dollars would go into our infrastructure. In short, this is as Fair as it gets.

Conclusion

Long gone are the days when a single economy of a country could stand on its own. These days it is a worldwide interlinked economy. If something bad happens to this economic model, it reverberates through out the structure until a neutralization factor comes into play. The same thing occurs when something good happens. The effect of The FairTax on the world economy would be overwhelmingly positive, from more money in our infrastructure, to a level playing field for our products. At the moment, we may be on top regarding our GDP, but it is not a good idea to rest on our laurels so to speak. China’s economy is burgeoning, and the only way we can keep the lead is by sustained growth. The FairTax will fuel growth at an unprecedented rate. It should be at the forefront for a replacement system for taxation if not chosen outright as the best solution that addresses multiple issues that we have in this venue.

************************

[1] http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/02/hr_block_mistake.html
[2] http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-vision_reflections/offshore_3375.jsp
[3] http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/budget-brief-05.pdf.

2006-07-25T12:41:00.000-07:00

Differences Between Ronald Reagan and William Clinton:

Ronald Reagan: Draped in a US Flag
BillClinton: Draped in a Blue Dress

Ronald Reagan: An Honor Guard over his place of Burial
Bill Clinton: A Guard to prevent Dishonoring of his place of Burial

Ronald Reagan: "Tear Down That Wall!"
Bill Clinton: "Take Off That Dress"

Ronald Reagan Legacy: Lower Taxes, Proactive approach in world affairs, defeat of the USSR
Bill Clinton Legacy: Whitewater, Monica, and Impeachment

Ronald Reagan: "Win one for The Gipper"
Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman!"

Ronald Reagan: Rattled Qaddafi's Bedroom
Bill Clinton: Had Guests in Lincoln's Bedroom

Ronald Reagan: Said No to Drugs
Bill Clinton: Did not inhale (so he said)

Ronald Reagan: Bluffed the USSR into thinking we were going to start a war
Bill Clinton: Bluffed his way through 1992 and 1996

Ronald Reagan: Respected even by his enemies
Bill Clinton: Disrespected by even his friends

Ronald Reagan: Visited Bitburg but Understood Sarajevo
Bill Clinton: Visited degradation on his Office and never Understood Sarajevo

Ronald Reagan: Convincing Speaker that left you with a sense of security
Bill Clinton: Convincing Speaker that left you with a feeling of contempt

Ronald Reagan: Taps
Bill Clinton: Tap Dancing Cabinet Members

Ronald Reagan: His wife, even if the War on Drugs was a mistake, felt it was for the good of the USA
Bill Clinton: His wife was the architect of a truly communistic Health Care system that would have brought Hell to the USA

Ronald Reagan: Took public responsibility for the Iran Contra Affair
Bill Clinton: Lied under Oath

Ronald Reagan: Never wavered in his ideology
Bill Clinton: Whatever ideology that gets him elected

Ronald Reagan: At least attempted to change things for the better
Bill Clinton: Took Credit for Reagan's Changes

Ronald Reagan: Has an Aircraft Carrier named after him
Bill Clinton: To 'Clintonize' is to obfuscate the arbitrary truth

R.I.P. Ronald Wilson Reagan (1911-2004)

Your legacy will be remembered

Plug the Bucket Before you fill it with Water!

2006-04-11T14:48:00.000-07:00

My (Radical?) Solution to Illegal Immigration

Should I have been surprised at Congress tabling any immigration reform bills until they return from recess? No, I was not surprised at all. Actually, I am beyond disgust at this issue. I remember back in 1986, when that Immigration Reform Bill was to be the final solution to the issue. The gave amnesty to about 3 million illegal aliens. Now it is 2006; almost five years ago, an attack was carried out against the WTC by terrorists. We have now in place even more draconian laws to deal with the terrorist threat; it seems that Congress is better at passing laws then repealing the ones that are pointless and stupid. The 1986 bill it seems was NOT the final solution to the problem, because now we have approximately 11 million illegals in the USA. You would think that all of the current bills up in Congress would address the root of the problem, but all that they do is give citizenship to the illegals already here and set the stage for even more to come across the border. It is no secret that Mexico uses illegal immigration as a venting system for its inefficient, corruption-besotted government, but the issue has finally come to a head: Do we allow the porous border we now have, or will it take another attack before the government gets enlightened?

It is also time to face some harsh political realities involving the US-Mexican Border, such as:

No Democrat will seal the border because illegal aliens can be converted into Democrat Party votes. (Spare me the feigned outrage. I have lived in TX, AZ and NV; I know this happens)

No Republican will seal the border because they who have purchased a GOP member comprise a lot of big business; illegal aliens work for much less than a documented worker, often times with no benefits, thus increasing the Corporate bottom line.

A supplement to the above is that no matter how much the government says it will fine businesses that hire illegals, they are going to fine the self same businesses that contributed to a Senator or House Rep getting elected? No way will that happen; that’s a lame as the candidate who says he will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. (They already do.)

A Libertarian would seal the border, but also provide a more sensible immigration policy to still allow people in, but these people would be LEGAL residents. Due to the current blood money system that reigns at the moment, I do not see thi happening anytime soon.

At the moment, we have NO idea who is crossing into the USA from Mexico at all. The Canadian border is nowhere near the problem that the Mexican one is due to a variety of factors like the Canadian Standard of living, the winter weather, and the wolves and bears about.

What will it take to get a proactive solution to this problem: A thermonuclear device smuggled into the US from Mexico and detonated in LA? It is well known that California has the most use for illegal labor; some say that removing the illegals would cause an economic depression in the state. Would a smoking black nuclear depression in LA be a better solution?

Look at it with this analogy: You have a leaky bucket into which you must place water to transport it. The leaky bucket is our border while the water represents the illegal aliens. You could use the leaky bucket to transport water, but water still would leak all over the ground, going everywhere with out you knowing where it is going. If the bucket was sealed up so it did not leak, then the water that you transport stays in the bucket; you know where the water is going. If the water is poisoned, you can dump all the poisoned water in one place and be confident none of it leaked on the ground, where it might harm your plants. This is valid ONLY if the bucket is sealed first. If the bucket is leaking, poisoned water goes everywhere. To add to this, if the flow of water is controlled so that it only can emerge though a specific place, then you are allowing water to fill the bucket, BUT you have control of the water situation.

My Proposed Solution

Okay, enough of the analogies and the specific reasons why no pending legislation will seal the border. The bottom line is that the border separating the US and Mexico MUST be sealed. My proposal is twofold though, because we not only need to control the flow of water so that sufficient amount gets to the USA, but we also have to plug the bucket. Therefore:

The US-Mexico Border will have two barriers erected from Brownsville to San Diego. The frontal barrier will consist of a 25 feet high Concrete wall buried 5 feet deep in the dirt for a visible height of 20 feet.

75 feet further north of the barrier, a 15 foot electrified chain link fence will be erected once again from Brownsville to San Diego inclusive.

This could be accomplished in 6 months, considering the aridity of the border area. I know some people will say how will it be paid for, but consider how much money is spent from illegals using our services in the USA. Te reason for the 75 foot gap is to allow constant patrol of the border. If some enterprising individuals decide to tunnel underneath the wall and fence, thermal imaging will detect them. As tunnels are discovered, blow them closed and block them. If the coyotes and narcotraficantes want a border battle, they will be sharply reminded of the last time Mexico challenged the USA in battle.

Objective:

     You have succeeded in fixing the leaky bucket. How to control the flow of water? By allowing Open Controlled Immigration at ESTABLISHED entry points.

Ellis Island

     “Ellis Island is a symbol of America’s immigrant heritage. From 1892 to 1954, this immigrant depot processed the greatest tide of incoming humanity in the nation’s history. Nearly twelve million landed here in their search of freedom of speech and religion, and for economic opportunity.”
http://www.ellisisland.com/ellis_home.html
     As I recall, some of my ancestors came through Ellis Island. It was a no-frills processing center that dealt with as many as 12 million immigrants that came to the USA seeking opportunity. That worked at the time; we have a lot more resources available to make it work better even now. The following locations will house Immigration Intake Centers. (IICs):

North of San Francisco

Calexico, California

Nogales, Arizona

South of Las Cruces, New Mexico

Del Rio, Texas

McAllen – Brownsville, Texas

North of Tampa, Florida

Jacksonville, Florida

South or North of Wilmington, North Carolina

(tentative) North of Glasgow, Montana

Seattle, Washington

(tentative) Detroit, Michigan

What will this do? This will control the flow of water (immigrants) into the country. The quota system as well needs to be put in the trash bin. This in combination with sealing the border addresses multiple issues such as:

Removing the incentive to illegally enter the USA. ( If you are a law abiding individual, you can go to an IIC and emerge with a green card.

California will have all the workers they need for their economy

It will be rather hard to hire illegals if there are not many to be found. Businesses will be forced to hire documented workers and allow for that adjustment.

Any amnesty passed could be processed through the IIC as well.

Possible Objections

How will we pay for all of this?

     How much are we paying every day now while more and more illegals flood into the USA? How much do they cost state economies in health care and law enforcement expenditures? No criminal or never-do-well is going to risk going through an IIC and be caught. They will be the ones trying to sneak in illegally. They are the ones we do NOT want in this country at all. The barrier and the IICs will eventually pay for them selves, as well as provide decent work opportunities for bi-lingual and multi-lingual people.

It is a violation of the illegal immigrants’ rights to bar them from a better future!

     No, it is a violation of OUR rights that we have to suffer the flood on illegals into this country with essentially no controls at all. OUR tax money pays for what services in the US they use and OUR law enforcement has to waste manpower in rounding them up. The barrier is to preserve our sovereignty and increase our safety. They can go to an IIC because, if they have nothing to hide, they will get a green card and be allowed to be in this country legally. Of course if they have a criminal record or are persona non grata, then your argument is void.  We are not entering their country illegally and putting a grievous load on their infrastructure; it is OUR right to protect this country and know who is entering it!

They will come in by sea then!

     A far more difficult means to enter, and we do have a Coast Guard. Also by putting an IIC at either end of the barrier, that should take care of most of the people seeking to live in the USA. If they want to float in by sea and make it to an IIC, then all power to them.

In Conclusion

     I have yet to see any Immigration reform bill in Washington DC that addresses the border first and foremost. There is NO point in offering amnesty with an open border because more will flood in for the next round. McCain- Kennedy even goes as far as to encourage more to flood in, because the federal government will collect $2000 from each illegal in the country (can you say endless revenue source?) I will vote against any candidate or incumbent that:

Votes for amnesty without sealing the border first.

Votes for any proposal that allows the federal government to milk this issue for its own personal gain, disregarding any security risks.

It is time to make this Immigration reform a true and final answer to the issue that we face. I welcome all commentary and suggestions either pro or con

A Jaded Bard

Full Speed Ahead to Stasis or ?????

2006-01-31T19:28:00.000-08:00

I know it has been awhile since I posted to this blog, but things seem to be either caught in a state of change or a change to stasis; I don’t know. I no longer work for Goodwill Industries; I got a clarion call of sorts about a week ago when I resigned. A week ago Friday I managed to sprain my back; was it long term aggravation or was it from the previous Monday when I thought that working on one of the Goodwill trucks would be better? The driver did not want to do any work at all once we got to the plant; I unloaded a medium sized truck full of furniture ranging from light to extremely heavy unaided for the most part. If you ever have sprained your back, it is most unpleasant. You can not bend over or sit at all; if you manage to sit, it is so much fun getting up when your back muscles spasm. As much as I actually liked digging through the donations people brought (It is amazing what the donate sometimes!), it is not worth getting a REAL back injury to myself. I should have not transferred in hind sight, but that’s how it goes. The bottom line is that Goodwill does not want educated people working on the floor and especially not as a Donor Greeter. It is amusing also in hind sight that most of the assistant managers (they call them ATL’s – Assistant Team Leaders) are middle-aged women with very little formal education. They treat their areas of management as their own private little fiefdoms; woe to any who cross their path. If you are in charge of part of a salvage operation, of what are you really in charge? I would better be able to understand the territoriality if the work was of a higher (much higher) scale, but this? I do believe that my days of hard physical labor are over with for good; risking a back injury is not worth the princely sum they were paying me. I earned a Bachelor’s Degree and will be paying for it forever it seems via monthly debits from my checking account; I assuredly can find some better sort of compensation that requires more brains. I have the blueprints for the house I want built; all that needs to happen now is for someone to buy a piece of real estate I am selling. I am quickly learning about how slow some things proceed in this neck of the woods; it is only recently I have started to slow down to match the pace of living here. Also, congratulations SCOTUS Affiliate Alito! Maybe The US Constitution will be defended versus being compromised. I will be posting again very soon, and in a more timely manner.

Another year is gone.......

2005-11-24T19:37:00.000-08:00

24 November 2005

Well, it has been a while since I last posted; you know how life gets you caught up in one thing or another. I had decided to pursue a masters Degree in Education, but I got over that challenge quickly enough. I moderate on a IRC channel called #politics. It is easier to refute liberal arguments in that venue versus listening to one prate on and on about this and that. I am expected to pay money for that? And when you are expected to use a Style guide, the professor uses her own arbitrary one? She was using a term called Rubric; one of the definitions of that word is an ossified, dogmatic rule set. This one fit the class to a T. The work itself was Mickey Mouse bull; I could write a research paper. The aggravation she added to the equation, I do not need that at all. I am happy with the Bachelor’s Degree I hold in IT. Let’s see, what else. Yeah, in less than two hours, I will be forty three years old. I do not feel old most of the time, but at times I do. Someone said once that I have old eyes; I wonder what that means. I work as a donor greeter at a local Goodwill store. I greet the donor’s and move their donations in and sort them. When I am not doing that, they have me pricing books and such, but I am not in any way mesmerized: They want me to greet the donors because most of them are too ******** lazy to do the job them selves all day. I suppose that I am required to have some idea what I want to do with the rest of my life, but at this time, I have not one clue. I think that I will continue buying brass figurines for my menagerie (which is growing), wait for some real estate to sell, then I guess go from there. Oh, and I will continue reading, the one real enjoyment I have these days. I know what I know, so do not look for an APA style list of references; it is not here. Instead, how about a debate on #politics? (

Sibling Animosity in Cacophony Major

2005-10-02T21:57:00.000-07:00

As I stated before in the blog intro, I am the youngest child of six; I have 3 older brothers and two older sisters. Once again there were pluses and minuses to this situation. My father was a doctor and my mother had a few years of college; they both were bibliophiles. As soon as we were old enough to replace a book we pulled off the shelf, we had unrestricted access to all the books in the house. This included Gray’s Anatomy and any other sort of medical references; birds and bees my ass! This beat any school health course. The minuses were one hell of a lot more prevalent in hindsight. The unhealthy competitiveness was only one aspect. When you are the youngest in that sort of environment, you get bossed around by 7 people, not 2. Also, you get slapped around by more than just parents as well. I also learned definitions of certain words you would never find in the dictionary. Share in our household meant I would be lucky if I got anything, from privacy to any actual goods from this sharing. Hiding was the only way to not have to participate in this sharing bullshit. If it wasn’t my older sibs getting me to do something stupid and either getting into trouble or paying for it in other ways, (Yellow jacket stings do hurt by the way, as does your dads hand beating your ass after you cut u r a nuisance into the family car; that was all I was to them.) it was my naiveté in thinking I could overall beat my older brother at a board or card game. My parents did nothing to stop this shit either; they encouraged and enabled it. My dad felt that he had to compete with his sons for some odd reason; my mom finally made him stop with the mass amounts of corporal punishment. About the only thing I ever could be proud of was the fact I somehow taught myself how to read at just sort of 3 years old. Almost everything past that I never really was proud of at all; I did not learn how to roller skate or ride a bicycle or most any other crap because I was happy to do so; no, I could not let my sibs do what I could not, and be damned the consequence. I envied my oldest sister, who managed to stay aloof from most of the shit that was going on; that was one survival skill I could have used. I was also a problem child as well. All male members of my family are hyperactive; my dad included. These days they slap a nice little label on you like ADHD, but back then you were a hyperactive troublemaker. I had the foulest temper imaginable when I was a kid; this continued until I was near the end of my twenties. The shit never ended when we all were adults either. I wound up taking car of our mom while we both lived in Las Vegas. It was always a joy (NOT!) when the sibs came to visit mom. I would consistently be treated like I was still nine years old while my mom continued in her nice way of tearing at me and denigrating me when she could. To be totally truthful, I was not sad when my father died and only a little sad when my mom died; it was only when she was near death that she finally stopped tearing at me. She and I had a discussion regarding our family. I equated our family to a Feudal English one. Oldest son inherits, second son military, third son clergy, any daughters could be married off for leverage and any extra sons left over were dirt of the earth. She said that was not fair, so I said okay, I am this family’s appendix or colon: I am there, but serve no real function at all. The problem with my sibs is that we are all educated pretty well; so any sort of putdown will never be direct though it will always be condescending. When my mom (The Great Enabler) died in 2003, that was the final string holding us together as a family unit. I used my portion of the estate to move the hell out of Las Vegas to Florida. I my actually visit my sisters at some point, but it will be when I decide to do so; as much as they wish me well, I have one of my wishes already. I can finally live clear of all of them and do what I wish to do. This last two years or so has been like getting my life back piece by piece. I rarely contact my siblings these days because I do not wish to hear their condescending bullshit for the most part or how I need to be raised into adulthood via the insinuation I do not know something I actually do know. As fast as my siblings reached their majority is as fast as they left the house for good. I left in 1984. Since that time, we have been spread out all over the place. In 42 years, I have lived in 7 states in the USA. I hope this move is the last one, but you never know. I have learned from my siblings that co-operation is not always a good thing, recalcitrance is not always bad, and that getting something done in spite of someone is often faster than waiting for non-existent co-operation. To sum up all of the love e have for each other, my sibs and I, that’s easy to do. I will bet some are waiting around to see which one of us dies first. We NEVER were the Brady bunch, not at all. Two of my siblings will never have kids, three do. I am the last holdout, but I think that if I have any children, I will say to them that I was an only child. They will be far better off.

Where the Nice Men go

2005-09-27T16:53:00.000-07:00

Where the Nice Men Go

I.

Alas, your relationship has been split asunder
So long to the security you’ve felt you’ve known
All that time you sat and wondered
Now you truly ARE alone
He turned out not to really want to change
(A drunken coward, quite deranged?)
Or the felonious type that beats his wife
At least for now, you have ended the strife
With kids and/or heartbreak somewhat in hand
You ponder things you wished to know
“Where will I find a decent man?”
I will tell you where the nice men go

We seek not pity of our current plight
If even one who reads this gains insight

II.

In our youth we were excoriated and spurned
(Because we had the gall to treat you with respect?)
Or maybe it was the wages we earned
(“Nah”, you said, “I’d rather try to change neglect!”)
When we were young, we cried and were distressed
As we girded ourselves for an unwinnable war
To know we were at best second best
Yet still we tried, and cried, some more
Then we quivered in rage at the men you would choose
(And wondered how and why dysfunctionality had merit?)
How could you suffer their neglect and abuse?
But we stoically refused to share it
We strived, at the same time, to earn successes’ share
While we watched your choices wreak wrack and ruin
We focused on life; we didn’t live laissez-faire
(While wondering “Does she really know what she is doing?”)

But time heals well, all the wounds, scars, and welts
To neutralize and deaden the Angst that we felt

III.

Now we finally discovered the fault was not ours!
(We did not choose a mentally myopic view!)
As we now exercise our earned career powers
It is good we were schooled in the likes of you
Our cars still aren’t chic and our dress hasn’t much changed!
We’re still the same NICE and boring men as before!
But even though you may find this quite strange…
Most, if not all, of you we learned to ignore
Maybe we were shy, not assertive enough?
Amazing, though, a kid to father your kids!
(Yeah, that reprobate felon, all stony and tough)
Of that infantile behavior, we are well rid.

Has this filled you in with clues well enough?
Does my poetic effort show refined, not rough?

IV.

Alas, you were drawn to that nova like flame
That quickly sundered itself to ash
Ours burn less bright, but steady, not lame
That nova, like Crystal, sure causes a crash!
Now whenever we turn our thoughts to you
And of futures no longer dreamt
Since you paid back our honesty with much to be rued…
We hold all mercenaries in contempt!
We still hope for companionship, but we’ve well learned the score..
As we peruse with interest our scholarly tomes
It is life that we love; only you we abhor
So we wrote our experiences down in this poem

**sigh** and still you ask where the nice men go?
…If you still have to ask…you never will know

Timothy G. L’innomme

TimLin@NetTaxi.com

A Response to allowing Prayer in the schools

2005-09-27T16:50:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

THE SECULAR RIPOSTE

On occasion, I am the overjoyed (bah!) recipient of one of those pass-it-along letters bemoaning the fact that prayer is not allowed in our school system. Since I am sure that letter will still show up in my mailbox at some point, and I, to date, have seen no reply of note to that letter, here is my reply.

I.

Some say that no prayer in school
is an ill begotten, odious rule
They protest this rule like stubborn mules
Since those who decreed this must be fools!
So I studied the tomes of history
(no revisionist crap, with its perfidy)
I wanted for myself to see
If it was fools that made the above decree

From times innumerable, again and again I saw
Masses of sheep cowed by Theocratic law
Was it the wrath of their God they were fearing?
(Or was organized religion social engineering?)
For the acolytes of faith were not God, but man
(who claimed to know the divine plan!)
“And only through me”, said they, “Would God you see!!”
(Why is it they seemed like con men to me?)

II.

Then in the late 1000’s A.D.
The Pope at the time made an onerous decree
Head ye all south to the Jerusalem shrine!
To reclaim it for your God divine!
For the Caliph taunted the Pope to his face
Jerusalem is all ours, this holy place!
(Even a King would not dare wreak that disgrace!)
So came the Crusades to teach heretics their place
And the hypocrites received absolution from God
As they raped, pillaged, murdered, tortured and trod
Upon temple and Mosque, and Statue and Synod
(Such a shining example of government and God!)

Then the early 1200’s came to be
Another power-mad pope with an odious decree
Catharites and Templars committed HERESY!
( The truth: Church coffers were as barren as can be.)
After they slaughtered and excoriated the sinners
It was only the church that ended up winners
With the blood money they earned, they built learned spires
(Was this God’s, or man’s desire?)

III.

The 1500’s brought Protestant flames
Still Religion and Politics though, mixed up the same
The acolytes of power were responsible for this game
(Since we showed they were men, then man is to blame!)
The 1600’s brought learning, but man still had not learned
With the wars of religion, and witches to burn
Galileo was crucified on an Inquisitional Cross
Because the acolytes needed control of man through their god, regardless of loss!

Though explorers sailed the seas
The lands they found were for Christianity
Not at first were these lands for humanity
Which led to even more calamity
But the sanctified excesses of Organized Christianity
Pushed many an objector over the sea
And, while still, there were some calamities
For the first probable time, man was free.

IV.

Until, 100-odd years later, there arose a new state
Whose founders sought ills to ameliorate
After much contentious , spirited debate
These men did sunder church and state!
So, now let’s return to the present day
Where many are jealous of the USA
The Theocratic states are all in disarray
As their acolytes still murder and slay.
Because the founding fathers chose to delineate your rights
They debated and argued, day and night
And just in case they did not get it right
They allowed it to grow with futures light.

V.

So now we should allow prayer in our places of learning?
(They do in the Caliphate polyglot)
Because it will soothe our perpetual yearnings?
Or maybe bring peace? (Alas, it will not!)
You say there would be choice in what was preached
(But I have shown you how often that was breached!)
Government, onerous and massively grown
Has proved humans will grind their own
Because when you mesh a church and state
The non-conformists would be branded ingrates,
Heathens, heretics, or worthless liars..
Perfect for fanning a Pogrom’s fire!

Be thankful that it is this way,
Instead of a malignant theocrat holding sway
Such that I can ignore religious decay
While you wait in rapture for judgment day
We are free to worship in our hearts
With little fear of being sundered apart
So on reflection of that allegedly odious rule
I am glad there is no prayer in the schools!

Timothy G. L’innomme

linnommt@earthlink.net

I am 42 and Single.....So?

2005-09-26T18:44:00.000-07:00

It almost sounds like I am at some sort of Anon meeting; maybe they should call it Singles Anonymous. ‘Hello. My name is Tim and I am 42 and single.’ That is about the time people give me looks of incredulity as they stare in awe, acting as if they discovered a real alien life form. It used to bother me up until a time rather recently. For years I asked myself: Why am I not married yet? It has only been since I approached then passed 40 did it cease to be a major concern of mine, if still a concern. I remember my teenage years in High School. As I recall, only the real popular ones that fit in had a ‘girlfriend’. I was always on the outside looking in, so I sure as hell did not qualify. Then I remember my twenties. I call that the ‘the wrong’ period of my life. I had the wrong hairdo, the wrong clothing, the wrong personality, the wrong car, the wrong job, etc. It seemed to me that others were not having this problem. This continued into my thirties as well. I got used to being turned down for dates; to this day, I have a high-energy personality. Don’t get me wrong, hyperactivity is not all bad, but it sure as hell got in the way of me finding someone. Through out this time, I got to see just how vicious and mercenary ladies could be when they set their minds. I asked someone out to a concert, they said yes. I bought the tickets and showed up to pick her up; she did not tell me that her boyfriend was there. Another time, I was told after the ‘date’ she was kind of living with someone. This next one is my all time favorite: I was told by a gal on a date that she was kind of pregnant. All that night, her boyfriend was tailing us; I only found this out after the fact. The same thing occurred online when I started meeting people there. It was only a few years ago that I finally realized that I had reached my point of saturation. You wind up married out of love and mutual respect and trust in your partner to want to grow with you and share the bad times and the good. I realize that I never really had a relationship of meaningful consequence in my life. I do not count the time spent with female companions who were only superficially attracted to me at all. When I thought about this, it was no wonder why I was single at all. It is hard to build trust where none ever existed, harder still to get to know the person if they are only willing to give you stolen moments of time and even then solely for their own amusement, and impossible to arrive at a feeling of love when she only sees you for what goods you can purchase or what havoc she can create. After a while, I started seeing the positive side of the situation. I considered that I could manage my own finances and residence on my own just fine. Since I did not have a family, my expenses were minimal; this came in handy when I finally went to college to get my Bachelors Degree; I got loans for the school, but paid bills by delivering pizza 4 days a week. My neighbor next to me in the four-plex where I lived was a 35 year old Guatemalan divorcee. I lived in this barrio environment for two years. One day I was told that she was interested in me, but that I had to make a lot more money first. That called up a red flag immediately: This woman was a mercenary. What use would I have for someone who not only refused to learn any more English than necessary, but expected to be able to stay at home all day to boot? I admit that I was interested in her until this information was revealed to me. I wanted to learn more and still do; I may go back to school and get my Masters Degree. This gal only wanted to snag a husband and felt that was her only job. How would you feel if you were treated that way? I learned to walk away. Another positive to my situation was that when I decided to move away from Nevada, I only had to ask myself if I wanted to move. The answer was yes. It was a lot of hard work packing everything and making the arrangements, but I am proud to say I did it. Having someone else to help would have been nice, but not necessary. Could it be my independence is a barrier to my finding someone? I do not know, I only know that if the bills were not paid, then I could only blame myself. That may be a hard habit to break. Another question I asked myself was whether or not I was bitter over my experiences? I think I was at one time, but no more. I think in a way the tables have turned; the work I put into learning back then is paying off now; if you wish to catch my eye, intelligence and especially honesty are things I value more than looks. Maybe there is someone out there who would also want to start a family.

Preamble for what the Future may bring

2005-09-26T13:43:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my Blog!

I finally decided to make one of these ever since I saw my friend, Rebecca, having so much fun with hers. Maybe you are wondering, what will be in this Blog? As the title suggests, I suppose I have become a bit jaded; I have seen more for my years I think than many people my age have. I still possess a positive outlook on life though; I make no apology for my black humor; it comes with the territory I suppose. I am the youngest of six baby-boomer kids born between 1955 and 1962. As much as I would like to say it was a Brady Bunch sort of existence, it was not. The positives of a rich learning environment and being born with a stainless steel spoon were offset by the sibling animosities (which still exist to this day) and the unhealthy level of competitiveness engendered in us by our parents. The parents have both passed on, so they will be on no issue here; whether or not my siblings view this, oh well. The posts on here will be on a variety of topics, from personal items of note to commentary on global and national happenings. One of my favorite pastimes is reading; something which I am told I taught myself at less than 3 years old. Does that mean I am some sort of prodigy? I would never be that arrogant or full of myself; it is the one thing I found that I can do extremely well. The Bard part of the post has to do with the fact that for school, I read a good amount of Shakespeare; my signature is also an utterance from one of his plays; Julius Caesar. Be also advised that though I have a good command of the English language, some may find my termage or commentary rather harsh. With that said, I hope you enjoy this blog; it is not here to entertain as much as it is for a sounding board for me.